Leadership and Governance

What is the context? 
The government has included, in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, a new duty for primary schools to secure a breakfast club that is at least 30 minutes in duration, includes food, and is free and open to all pupils. 

ASCL fully supports the government’s desire to tackle child poverty, to break down barriers to opportunity in schools, and to support working parents by ensuring they have access to high-quality childcare. We also recognise the role that breakfast clubs in primary schools can play in supporting these ambitions.

However, we have significant concerns about this proposal. These are as follows: 

1. Making this a duty, rather than something which schools can choose to do, represents a worrying shift from schools being considered places of education, to places of childcare. 
2. This will present significant logistical challenges for some schools, including around staffing and physical space. This includes the difficulty of predicting how many pupils will attend the breakfast club each day, if it is open to all children and provided free of charge, which in turn makes planning appropriate and safe staffing extremely difficult. 
3. If breakfast clubs are not adequately funded by the government, schools will have to subsidise this provision themselves, stretching already challenging budgets to breaking point. This also risks disrupting existing wrapround care. 
4. The impact of this policy will fall disproportionately on school leaders in primary schools, as they will need to plan and oversee this provision and would likely need to be on-site for safeguarding reasons. Essentially this therefore amounts to a 30-minute statutory extension of the primary school day, with no consultation. 
5. There is no evidence that this proposal will attract those children who would most benefit from it.

ASCL position: We suggest the government amends the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to reduce the degree of detail in the clause relating to breakfast clubs. Instead, the Bill should state that primary schools should have a duty to follow statutory guidance on breakfast clubs. This would enable current and future governments to learn how this policy can be effectively implemented on the ground, and adjust the detail in secondary legislation or statutory guidance accordingly. 

Why are we saying this? 
We believe that this amendment would prevent the government from being tied down to a particular model of breakfast club delivery, which may prove problematic on implementation. It would give them time to learn from the current breakfast club early adopters programme, and space to reflect this learning in subsequent secondary legislation or guidance. 

This would help to alleviate some of the concerns among primary leaders that this policy, as currently envisaged, could prove impossible to implement and counterproductive, while still ensuring all primary schools are required to provide breakfast club provision. 

 

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. 

ASCL Council’s discussions so far have 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. 
 

What is the context? 
The government has confirmed that it will replace current accountability tools with a new ‘school report card’, which will be introduced and used to hold schools to account from September 2025.

ASCL has advocated for a ‘report card’, ‘accountability dashboard’ or ‘balanced scorecard’ since 2021, in our Blueprint for a Fairer Education System. We are therefore extremely pleased that this approach is now being taken. 

However, we are concerned about the speed at which this work is happening. As of October 2024, no detailed proposals on what school report cards will look like, or how the evidence to populate them will be gathered, have been presented to the sector. 

The previous government committed to a series of workload protocols, to reduce the workload and stress of school and college leaders, teachers and support staff. These protocols included not introducing major changes to accountability without a full years’ notice, and not making changes to assessment or accountability mid-year.

The government and Ofsted have suggested that a report card, and an accompanying new Ofsted inspection framework, will be consulted on in early 2025.

ASCL is currently in discussion with the government over the establishment of a new partnership between government, unions and employers. Accountability has been identified as one of three initial areas of focus for this partnership. 

ASCL position:
It is essential that the government takes the time needed to properly consult on, develop and implement its proposed new approach to accountability and inspection, based on report cards.

ASCL would be prepared for this new approach to be introduced later than the currently proposed date of September 2025 if this is necessary to get it right.

In the meantime, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss ongoing adaptations to the current interim approach.

Why are we saying this?
This is a rare and important opportunity to fundamentally rethink and improve the way in which schools and colleges are held to account. It is essential the outcome of this work leads to a much better system. 

Such a significant change will require extensive and meaningful consultation; a considered response from government; design work; testing; implementation; a comprehensive communication strategy with school and college leaders, parents and other stakeholders; and sufficient time for schools and colleges to prepare for the implementation of the new approach.

We are concerned that, if the new approach is only to be consulted on in early 2025, then this leaves limited time to implement this process by September. We would therefore be prepared to support the government and Ofsted in taking longer to consult on, develop and implement this new approach in order to get it right. 

We are conscious that the new partnership between government, unions and employers, which will have accountability reform as a key area of focus, has not yet been formally ratified. If the partnership is to represent meaningful co-construction, then this group will need time to feed into the thinking and design of the report cards.

We recognise that the consequence of this position may be that the current ‘transition year’ is extended beyond September 2025. While we are clear that the current system must be replaced, we recognise the significant changes that Ofsted has made since January 2024, including the removal of the single-phrase overall effectiveness judgement, and as a result we would be prepared to support the government and Ofsted in a decision to extend the interim period while the new system is developed. However, we think that further changes could be made in the interim period to support school and college leaders’ wellbeing and workload, particularly if it were to be extended beyond the original year. 
 

What is the context? 
The government has confirmed that it will replace current accountability tools with a new ‘school report card’, which will be introduced and used to hold schools to account from September 2025.

To feed into this work, Ofsted is currently working on a new inspection framework, which we anticipate will form some, but not all, of the report card. This is due for consultation in early 2025, for introduction in September 2025.

ASCL has advocated for a ‘report card’, ‘accountability dashboard’ or ‘balanced scorecard’ since 2021, in our Blueprint for a Fairer Education System. In our 2024 discussion paper on this topic, we suggested that a report card should be based around a set of standards, set by government through legislation and agreed with the sector.

ASCL position: The proposed school report cards should be based around an agreed set of standards, set by the government through legislation, in consultation with the sector.

Ofsted should inspect against these standards to feed into certain elements of the report card.  

Why are we saying this?
Under previous governments and Ofsted frameworks there was sometimes a disconnect between the statutory expectations on schools and colleges and inspection criteria. This created confusion and unnecessary workload in the system.

Instead, we think that there should be a slim set of standards that all schools and colleges are expected to meet, and that accountability measures and reporting should be against these standards, without creating additional expectations.

We believe it is right that the democratically elected government should set these standards. Many of these standards already exist, for example in the National Curriculum or in Keeping Children Safe in Education. 

Ofsted has a statutory role in designing a framework which will report on the quality of education, and in notifying the Secretary of State of any schools causing concern. It is our view that Ofsted can fulfil this statutory obligation by developing a framework to inspect schools and colleges against these statutory standards, which are defined by the DfE, in partnership with the sector, and approved by Parliament.

ASCL believes that this approach to accountability and inspection would significantly reduce the workload and pressure on school and college leaders, as inspection would solely focus on whether or not schools are compliant with the standards, without offering a value judgement. This would still provide rich information for parents, while reducing the burden and high-stakes nature of accountability on schools and colleges.

The standards that form the report card would likely include elements that can be automatically populated (such as attendance and national assessment data), alongside information which would need to come from inspection (such as the extent to which schools implement a broad and balanced national curriculum with fidelity).

We therefore think that the standards should be defined and approved through legislation, before the report card or inspection framework are designed.

The DfE already uses a similar approach to regulation and inspection in the independent sector, where the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) inspects against a small but detailed set of standards, set out by the government in legislation. 

Going forward, any future frameworks must not place additional burdens or expectations on schools and colleges through the handbook or inspection activity, beyond those expectations defined by statutory guidance.
 

What is the context? 
On 3 September 2024, the government announced that single-phrase judgements for overall effectiveness were to be removed from graded (section 5) inspections with immediate effect for schools. However, sub-judgements in quality of education, behaviour and attitudes, personal development, leadership and management, early years, and sixth form would remain. Schools causing a concern will still be notified, as Ofsted is legally required to do.

Other educational settings, specifically colleges, early years providers and independent schools inspected by Ofsted, will continue to receive an overall effectiveness judgement. The government has said that this change will happen in due course for those settings, but has not specified a date or timescale for this.

ASCL position: We are concerned that the recent removal of single headline grades applies just to schools in the state sector. The Department for Education has said that their removal from other settings inspected by Ofsted – including colleges, early years settings and some independent schools – will follow, but has not committed to a timescale.

We encourage the DfE to consult with these settings as a matter of urgency about how to improve inspection for them in the short term, ahead of the introduction of a report card-based approach in due course.

Why are we saying this?
The removal of overall effectiveness grades for all early years settings, schools and colleges inspected by Ofsted is a longstanding ASCL position.

Although the announcement of the removal overall effectiveness grades for most educational settings was welcome, the failure to include early years providers, colleges and independent schools was unfair on these sectors, and somewhat confusing.

We recognise that schools are in a ‘transition year’ between the removal of overall effectiveness judgements in September 2024 and potentially a new school report card in September 2025. We think that a similar transition period should be applied to other sectors, in consultation with the sectors themselves about what this look likes.

It is important that early years, colleges and independent schools inspected by Ofsted are not seen as an afterthought, and the lack of clarity on a timescale for these sectors is disappointing.
 

What is the context?

ASCL believes that: 

• inspection should be constructive, not punitive
• inspection activity should be based on professional dialogue
• inspection outcomes must be reliable and valid in order to carry the trust of the profession and other stakeholders
• inspection frameworks, and their implementation, must be transparent
• significant changes to inspection should only be introduced following a thorough pilot, and a detailed impact analysis

We welcomed the updated Education Inspection Framework (EIF) in 2019, particularly its focus on the curriculum and the quality of education, rather than historical data.

However, the implementation of the EIF has been flawed. Too many school and college leaders feel that the framework allows for overly subjective judgements to be made, that the quality of inspection teams is too variable, and that inspection activity sometimes goes beyond that set out in the handbook.

ASCL is concerned that Ofsted is losing the trust of the profession. Moreover, Ofsted’s public response to these challenges has not always been as helpful or constructive as it could have been.

In January 2023 ASCL published a discussion paper on the future of inspection, and spent the subsequent five months sharing and exploring the proposals in this paper with members, stakeholders and other experts. 

In June 2023, Ofsted announced a number of changes to inspection activity and to the 2023 handbook, and a consultation on its complaints process. While these changes are welcome, we do not believe they go anywhere near far enough, and urge both the outgoing and incoming Chief Inspector to consider more significant reform, as set out below. 

ASCL position: ASCL formally ratifies the recommendations in our Future of Inspection discussion paper, updating what we said about safeguarding to: 

“Safeguarding compliance should be annually audited. A school’s culture of safeguarding should continue to form part of inspection activity.”

Our recommendations on inspection are therefore as follows: 

1. Ofsted should immediately remove the overall effectiveness judgement.
2. Ofsted should remove all graded judgements in future frameworks.
3. Ofsted should tell schools and colleges in which academic year they will be inspected.
4. Ofsted should publish its inspector (OI) training and associated materials.
5. Ofsted should undertake an immediate review of how pupil voice is used during inspection.
6. The handbook and reporting should be updated to better reflect the role of trusts in school improvement.
7. Future inspection frameworks should continue to focus on the quality of education, with the national curriculum as the only document which sets out the government’s curriculum requirements or expectations.
8. Ofsted should publish new ‘standards’ rather than graded criteria.
9. The government should introduce a new ‘accountability dashboard’ or ‘balanced scorecard’, which should form the core of the inspection process and be the sole dashboard for accountability.
10. Ofsted and the DfE should introduce tighter and more transparent commissioning of support for schools or colleges which need it.
11. Ofsted should produce more nuanced inspection reports, which better reflect a school or college’s ethos and culture.
12. Ofsted should produce separate handbooks, frameworks and standards for different phases, and require lead inspectors to have relevant leadership experience of the phase they are inspecting. 
13. Safeguarding compliance should be annually audited. A school’s culture of safeguarding should continue to form part of inspection activity.
14. Trusts and groups of schools should be quality assured, with any approach to trust inspection thoroughly piloted ahead of implementation. 

Why are we saying this? 
We believe that fundamental changes must be made to the inspection system to ensure it is fit for purpose, and can regain the trust of leaders, teachers and parents. The proposals above would, in our view, set the inspectorate in the right direction to do this. 

 

What is the context? 
Last school year, only 17% of Ofsted complaints were upheld or partially upheld. ASCL members have expressed concern that so few complaints are upheld, and about a perceived lack of transparency and independence throughout the process.

Currently, schools and colleges have the opportunity to comment on the draft report, to complain online once they have received the final report, and finally to ask for an ‘internal review’. All of this is managed by Ofsted itself.

Only after these channels are exhausted can schools and colleges refer their case to the Independent Complaints Adjudication Service for Ofsted (ICASO). Even then, ICASO are unable to change the outcome of a complaint, and can merely make a recommendation back to Ofsted.

ASCL position: ASCL believes that Ofsted’s current complaints process is not fit for purpose. The system must be fair, transparent, and have the authority to require judgements to be revised where inspections are proven to have been flawed.

Why are we are saying this?
The current process is time-consuming and costly for schools and colleges. ASCL members have significant concerns about the transparency of the process: where complaints are not upheld, it is not always clear why. Furthermore, even in some cases where Ofsted acknowledges misconduct of inspection teams, complaints remain not upheld.

We also have concerns about Ofsted ‘marking its own homework’. The final stage of complaints – the ICASO – does not have the regulatory power to overturn a judgement or change the outcome of a complaint. Only Ofsted can do this.

ASCL would welcome a more transparent process, which may or may not be led by the inspectorate. 

We are also concerned about the inconsistency of inspection judgements, which compounds this problem. This position statement should therefore be read alongside our February 2023 position statement on inconsistency in inspection. 

 

What is the context? 
In 2019 Ofsted published its Education Inspection Framework (EIF), with a greater focus on the curriculum and quality of education. ASCL welcomed the new framework, and this focus, and still believe that the EIF has many strengths.

Routine inspections were suspended between March 2020 and September 2021 due to the pandemic. During that period, the government removed the exemption for outstanding schools and colleges to be inspected. Ofsted has been given £24 million to boost inspections, ensuring that all schools and colleges will be inspected between 2021 and 2025.

ASCL members have reported inconsistencies in the implementation of the EIF by inspection teams. This is deeply concerning, and undermines trust in the inspectorate.

Research published in February 2023 by UCL further indicates that inspection judgements are not reliable, and points to evidence that female inspectors are more likely to arrive at low judgements than male inspectors. This brings into question both the reliability and validity of the EIF’s implementation. 

ASCL position: ASCL welcomed the Education Inspection Framework (EIF) in 2019, particularly its focus on curriculum and the quality of education. However, ASCL members’ experience is that the EIF is not being applied consistently by inspectors. This risks judgements being unreliable, with significant ramifications for schools and colleges, and for the validity of the inspectorate itself. Ofsted needs to take urgent steps to improve the consistency of the inspection process to ensure fairness and transparency for all schools and colleges.

Why are we are saying this?
ASCL is disappointed that this position statement is required, as we broadly welcome the principles and thinking behind the EIF. 

However, it has become apparent that the EIF is not working as intended. A degree of subjectivity was inevitable – indeed welcome – to avoid inspection becoming a ‘tick box’ approach. But it has become clear that there is too much inconsistency in arriving at judgements.

ASCL is also concerned about the appropriateness of the EIF for small schools, standalone primary schools and special schools. The ‘deep dive’ methodology favours schools and colleges with large curriculum teams, with teachers with specialist knowledge of the discipline.

We are also concerned about evidence from ASCL members of inspection going beyond the Ofsted handbook. Schools and colleges should only be inspected under the published guidance, which in itself allows for professional judgements to be made.

We have previously expressed our position that Ofsted should publish all training materials it gives to inspectors for the sake of transparency, and that inspectors should not be expecting to see anything beyond the content set out in the national curriculum for maintained schools.
These concerns are compounded by the high-stakes nature of inspection. We think that this could be mitigated by the immediate removal of the overall effectiveness judgement, as recommended in our 2023 discussion paper The future of inspection. 
 

What is the context? 
As part of the Schools White Paper Opportunity for All, the government introduced a new ‘Parent Pledge’. This promises that any pupil who ‘falls behind’ in English and maths will be given ‘timely and evidence-based support to allow them to meet their full potential’, and that parents will be kept informed about their child’s progress.

Schools have been told to factor the Parent Pledge into their budgeting for 2022/2023, although it remains non-statutory. We are expecting non-statutory guidance on the Pledge to be published in the summer term 2022.

Currently, there is no definition of what ‘falling behind’ means. Schools are legally obliged to report to parents on their child’s learning at least once a year.

ASCL position: ASCL agrees with the principle of schools supporting every child to achieve, implementing effective interventions when necessary, and reporting to parents on a regular basis.
 
We believe that the vast majority of schools do this very well already.
 
However, we do not think that the introduction of the Parent Pledge is a helpful policy. We are concerned that it may lead to:

• adversarial relationships between parents and schools
• unrealistic expectations from parents, including where there may be resource constraints
• an over-focus on intervention rather than high-quality whole-class teaching, and on academic attainment to the exclusion of a child’s broader development
• a culture of over-assessment and tracking

Why are we saying this?
As stated above, we think the vast majority of schools already do what the Pledge sets out well, and see it as a core part of teaching and learning.

The Pledge is unhelpful as may lead to tensions between schools and parents, as there is no clear definition of what ‘falling behind’ or a child ‘meeting their potential’ means. Parents and schools may disagree about what a child is able to achieve, and therefore whether they are behind or not.

We also know that the best way to support lower attaining pupils, or pupils who may have misconceptions, is through high-quality classroom teaching. Some pupils will inevitably also need greater support and intervention, which should be evidenced-based, and based on the needs of the pupil. Schools are best placed to plan this effectively, but the Parent Pledge suggests an assumption that any child falling behind should automatically receive additional intervention, even if they don’t need it.

There is also a danger that the Parent Pledge will promote a culture of over-assessment, which the DfE and the profession have worked hard over the past decade to change. The most effective way to address gaps in knowledge and skills is through ongoing formative assessment in the classroom, and adaptive teaching as a result of that assessment. The Pledge may lead parents to feel that more summative assessment practices and tracking should be used.

We are also concerned that the Pledge may lead some parents to expect more reporting on their child’s progress and achievement. This could create additional workload and lead to poor assessment practice.

Finally, we are concerned that the Pledge is currently non-statutory for schools, and yet the government has ‘promised’ this to parents without the mechanisms to enforce it. While we think most schools already do this, the government should not be promising to parents that schools will deliver expectations or suggestions set out in non-statutory guidance.

 

What is the context? 
The 2022 Schools White Paper Opportunity for All sets out the government’s ambition for all schools to be in a strong multi-academy trust (MAT), or to have plans to join or form one, by 2030. In order to achieve this ambition, the government promises to deliver:

• a fully trust-led system with a single regulatory approach, which will drive up standards, through the growth of strong trusts and the establishment of new ones, including trusts established by local authorities
• a clear role for every part of the school system, with local authorities empowered to champion the interests of children and a new collaborative standard requiring trusts to work constructively with all other partners
• Education Investment Areas to increase funding and support to areas in most need, plus extra funding in priority areas facing the most entrenched challenges

The Schools Bill currently making its way through Parliament includes proposed new legislation to enable the government to achieve this vision, although it doesn’t include any measures which would enable the government to require most schools which aren’t currently in MATs to join one by the 2030 deadline. 

ASCL position: ASCL agrees with the benefits of schools and colleges working in strong collaborative groups, which was a key recommendation of our 2021 Blueprint for a Fairer Education System.
 
These groups of schools and colleges need to sit within a carefully designed local infrastructure. It is crucial that every school and college is able to join a group which will effectively support and challenge it, and that groups of schools and colleges work together across a local area.
 
The government needs to work collaboratively, through its Regional Directors, with all school, college and trust leaders in each region to co-construct a coherent, effective infrastructure which will ensure every child and young person receives a high-quality education.

Why are we are saying this?
Our Blueprint recommends that there should be opportunities and support for all schools and colleges to be part of a strong, sustainable group, but is clear that, in our view, there continues to be a role for different forms of strong legal partnership, and that schools should be encouraged rather than required to join such groups. 

What is crucial is that, if the government wishes to see all schools in MATs, it works with school, college and trust leaders to co-create local landscapes which are coherent and effective, and have the full support of leaders and communities. The newly designated Regional Directors will play an essential role in helping to shape that landscape, but they must draw deeply on local expertise in designing the sustainable system and infrastructure needed to provide appropriate support and challenge to all schools and colleges.  
 

What is the context?
Ofsted resumed all types of routine inspections in September 2021, after they were suspended in March 2020 during the first school closures. 

ASCL’s position in autumn 2021 was that requests for deferrals should be granted automatically, except where there is a safeguarding concern or breakdown in leadership and management. In response, Ofsted has centralised its deferral decisions to ensure consistency, amended its deferral policy, and, since January 2021, approved a vast majority of Covid-related deferral requests.

ASCL position: Many schools and colleges continue to undergo significant disruption in spring 2022 as a result of Covid, with high levels of staff and pupil absence. ASCL does not believe that inspections of schools and colleges in such circumstances can lead to an accurate and fair judgement. We therefore call for any request for deferral from schools or colleges in this situation in spring term 2022 to be granted, unless the inspection has been triggered by safeguarding concerns, with no detriment to the school or college in future inspections.

Why are we saying this?
ASCL is not calling for a complete suspension of Ofsted inspections this term. We recognise that the impact of the pandemic has been variable across schools and colleges, and that some schools (including those seeking to validate improvement) would welcome an inspection, as many have done.

This is why we think it’s more helpful for any school or college to be able to defer its inspection, without the normal deferral policy applying. Where there are serious safeguarding concerns or concerns about a breakdown in leadership and management, ASCL supports the continuation of ‘no formal designation’ inspections.

This would mean that any school or college which does not feel an inspection this term would be fair or valid would be able to defer its inspection, without detriment in the future. Equally, schools and colleges which feel less affected by the pandemic, or which feel they have made significant improvements since their last inspection which they would like to be recognised, could choose not to defer an inspection.

In ASCL’s Blueprint for a Fairer Education System, we advocate a review of school and college accountability, including the appropriateness of current accountability measures and the role these play in inspection. This must be a considered process, undertaken in consultation with schools and colleges.
 

What is the context? 
Pupils are coded ‘X’ in attendance data if they have symptoms of Covid-19, but have not had this confirmed by a test. Once a pupil tests positive, they are coded under ‘I’ for illness. 

If a pupil is unable to attend school or college because one or both of their parents are self-isolating, they are coded ‘Y’ for inability to attend due to exceptional circumstances.

Covid-related absences are therefore likely to impact significantly on schools’ and colleges’ published attendance figures for the 2021-2022 school year. This will vary between schools and colleges depending on how hard their communities have been hit by Covid, through no fault of their own. 

ASCL position: ASCL believes that attendance figures for the 2021-22 academic year should not be published, or used as a measure to hold schools and colleges to account.

Attendance data should continue to be shared with the Department for Education, but only to continue to give a national picture on the impact of the pandemic on staff and pupil absence rates, to help inform other policy decisions and interventions.

Why are we saying this?
Because of the decisions made on how to code Covid-related absence, some schools’ and colleges’ data will not present an accurate reflection of their efforts to keep students learning this year.

National attendance data is helpful to inform policy decisions.
 

What is the context?
The government has confirmed that performance data will be used and published in the following ways, if KS2, KS4 and KS5 assessments go ahead as planned in summer 2022:

• KS2 data will be made available to schools and trusts through ASP; will be shared across the DfE and will be available for use by Ofsted on the IDSR. It will not be published more widely.
• KS4 and KS5 data will be made available to schools, colleges and trusts through ASP; will be shared across the DfE; will be available for use by Ofsted through the IDSR; and will be made publicly available on the Compare Schools and Colleges website.

The technical detail of how performance measures will be calculated is still to be confirmed.

ASCL position: ASCL believes that, given the differential impact of the pandemic on schools and colleges, it is inappropriate and unnecessary to publish any performance data from KS2, KS4 and KS5 national assessments for 2021-2022.

ASCL believes that this data should not be used for any accountability purposes, including on ASP or IDSR, as it is not reliable, valid or necessary.

ASCL believes that school or college-level performance data should not be published on the Compare Schools and Colleges website.

If national assessments go ahead, ASCL believes that school and college-level outcomes should be shared securely with schools, colleges and trusts, in order to help target support and intervention.

Why are we saying this?
Schools and colleges have not been affected equally by the pandemic. It is therefore inappropriate and unnecessary to hold schools accountable for 2021-2022 performance data.

Furthermore, both pupil and staff absence rates have been significant throughout 2021-2022, and have been variable across schools and colleges. This is likely to affect their school- or college-level performance measures, as the DfE’s own research suggests that remote teaching is not as effective as teaching in the classroom.

The government has also said that early entry data from summer 2021 and 2020 exam series will not be used in published performance tables. This may disadvantage schools that use early entry as part of a principled curriculum model.

If this data is made available across the system, it may impact inspection outcomes and affect other decisions such as conditions of funding for DfE initiatives and academy order notices.

If this data was made publicly available, it may be to the detriment of some schools and colleges’ reputations, and may be misinterpreted. 
 

What is the context?
Ofsted resumed all types of routine inspections in September 2021, after they were suspended in March 2020 during the first school closures. Around 500 inspections took place between September 2021 and October half-term.

During the same period, Covid-19 rates rose in schools leading to significant – but variable – absence rates among pupils and staff across the country. Over 200,000 pupils in England were absent from school in the fortnight before October half-term.

ASCL position: Many schools and colleges continue to undergo significant disruption in autumn 2021 as a 
result of Covid, with high levels of staff and pupil absence. ASCL does not believe that inspections of schools and colleges in such circumstances can lead to an accurate and fair judgement. We therefore call for any request for deferral from schools or colleges in this situation in autumn term 2021 to be granted, unless the inspection has been triggered by safeguarding concerns, with no detriment to the school or college in future inspections. 

Why are we saying this?
ASCL is not yet calling for a complete suspension of Ofsted inspections this term. We recognise that the impact of the pandemic has been variable across schools and colleges, and that some schools (including those seeking to validate improvement) would welcome an inspection.

This is why we think it’s more helpful for any school or college to be able to defer their inspection, without the normal deferral policy applying. Where there are serious safeguarding concerns or concerns about a breakdown in leadership and management, ASCL supports the continuation of ‘no formal designation’ inspections.

This would mean that any school or college which does not feel an inspection this term would be fair or valid would be able to defer their inspection, without detriment in the future. Equally, schools and colleges which feel less affected by the pandemic, or which feel they have made significant improvements since their last inspection which they would like to be recognised, could choose not to defer an inspection.

In ASCL’s Blueprint for a Fairer School System, we advocate a review of school and college accountability, including the appropriateness of current accountability measures and the role these play in inspection. This must be a considered process, undertaken in consultation with schools and colleges. 

What is the context?
On 19 July 2021 the government published an update on the way school and college accountability will operate for the 2021/22 academic year.

At Key Stage 2, performance tables will not be published. However, at Key Stages 4 and 5, results from qualifications achieved in 2021/22 will be published in school and college performance tables, using the normal suite of accountability measures.

ASCL position: ASCL welcomes the decision not to publish Key Stage 2 performance tables for 2021/22, but strongly believes that the same principle should be applied at Key Stages 4 and 5.

The government should therefore also commit to the suspension of performance data at Key Stage 4 and 5 for this academic year to avoid generating unhelpful and meaningless comparisons during this unprecedented time of ongoing educational disruption.

ASCL also invites the government to work with us on a future accountability system which is more proportionate and gives families a greater and more meaningful range of information about the performance of schools and colleges.

Why are we saying this? 
It is clear the pandemic has affected education settings in different ways, and continues to do so. Any attempt to compare the performance of one school or college against another in 2021/22 makes no sense in the context of 18 months of disruption, and is also potentially damaging to individual schools, colleges and communities which have suffered the greatest impact. 

Performance tables must therefore  be suspended this academic year. In the longer term, ASCL’s Blueprint for a Fairer Education System calls for a broader and fairer set of performance measures.

 

What is the context? 
In May 2021, following the cancellation of statutory primary assessments in 2020 and 2021 as a result of the pandemic, primary schools were told to expect the resumption of a full suite of primary assessments from September 2021. 

ASCL position: primary schools must be able to focus relentlessly in the next academic year on education recovery. Statutory assessments have a role to play in helping schools, trusts and the government to understand the impact of the pandemic on children’s learning, and to provide appropriate targeted support. But these assessments must be used in a way which focuses purely on this diagnostic role, rather than being used for accountability purposes. 

In addition, the continued disruption to education across the country, and the variable nature of this disruption, makes any comparison of data between schools unreliable and unhelpful. 

The government must therefore commit to the continued suspension of performance tables in 2021/22. Ofsted must confirm that the results of statutory assessments will not be used as part of the inspection process next year. And school and college leaders should be clear that they will not use data from statutory assessments for any internal performance management purposes next year. 

ASCL will continue to work with the DfE and Ofsted to explore ways in which the impact of the pandemic can be sensibly evaluated.  

Why are we saying this? 
We know that the use of statutory assessments in accountability inevitably has a distorting effect, encouraging an over-focus on those elements of the curriculum that will be tested, to the detriment of other aspects of the curriculum and to children’s broader experience at school. It is essential, this year more than ever, that schools are able to respond effectively to children’s needs, and to balance the teaching of those aspects of learning tested through statutory assessments with a broader focus on children’s education and wellbeing. 

We also know that the pandemic has affected different children and schools in different ways. Some children will have been able to engage in remote learning during the periods of school closures more effectively than others. Some will have experienced personal loss or trauma, while others may have emerged relatively unscathed. Any attempt to compare the performance of one school against another next year will therefore be at best meaningless, and at worst actively counterproductive, given the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on more disadvantaged communities. 

The results of statutory assessments next year must, therefore, only be used diagnostically to understand the individual and collective impact of the pandemic on children, and to provide appropriate targeted support.
 

What is the context? The DfE published their Early Career Framework (ECF) in January 2019. The framework underpins an entitlement to a fully funded two-year package of structured training and support for early career teachers.

The DfE has previously committed to the following for the national rollout in Autumn 2021:

• funding and guaranteeing 5% off-timetable in the second year of teaching for all early career teachers 
• early career teachers continuing to have a 10% timetable reduction in their first year of induction
• creating high quality, freely available ECF curricula and training materials
• establishing full ECF training programmes
• funding time for mentors to support early career teachers
• fully funding mentor training

ASCL’s position: ASCL supports the intention behind the new statutory induction arrangements, and believes that additional, quality, support for Early Career Teachers is crucial, not only for their own personal development but, to help ensure that they are retained in the profession.
 
We believe that the new Early Career Framework offers a good level of support for Early Career Teachers.
 
However, in order for the benefits to be realised, we remain of the view that the role of the mentors is fundamental to the success of the programme and that therefore the time required for their training, time off timetable and associated back fill costs must be fully funded, regardless of the delivery route.

Why are we saying it? Whilst we are supportive of the intention behind the new statutory arrangements, the commitments made during the development of the Early Career Framework around fully funding all mentors’ time and training must be provided. It cannot be the case that some schools incur additional costs dependent on the delivery route, particularly if this is not of their choosing, when other schools receive full funding.
 

What is the context? Covid-19 has had an impact on the pupils in the current Year 10 and Year 12 due to take qualifications next year. Whilst it is universally accepted that all forms of accountability should be suspended in 2020, switching accountability back on in 2021 would be unhelpful and encourage false comparisons with other years.

ASCL position: ASCL believes that performance tables should continue to be suspended in 2021. Performance measures will not be comparable with other years for a wide range of reasons, including potentially reduced options and the exclusion of results from 2020. Data produced for schools to use internally, such as ASP, would be useful for information purposes so that schools can understand the impact of Covid-19. Even so, some measures will need to be adapted to have any meaning.

ASCL therefore calls on the DfE to announce this suspension without further delay so that schools can concentrate on creating the best experience for pupils and support their wellbeing from September.

Why are we saying it? Schools need to be free from the concerns of accountability as they work to reintegrate pupils during the year but would benefit from comparative information to use internally so they can assess the impact of the virus.
 

What is the context? Dealing with the coronavirus pandemic is one of the greatest challenges any of us has ever faced. The situation has been fast-moving, unpredictable, and extremely high stakes. Both government and school and college leaders have had to make decisions at speed, and based on incomplete and shifting evidence. 

While we recognise that the Department for Education has made attempts to engage with ASCL and other stakeholders during this period, we are concerned that this engagement has too often felt rushed, piecemeal and tokenistic.

School and college leaders are also increasingly angry and frustrated that announcements with major implications for schools and colleges are briefed to the media before being communicated to the profession. This leaves leaders in an extremely difficult position, with parents and communities wanting to know how schools and colleges plan to respond to an announcement of which they have had no prior warning. 

ASCL position:
ASCL urges the government to: 

1. liaise properly with key stakeholders about any major policies and proposals, initiating genuine discussions around different options rather than simply seeking last-minute comments on the government’s preferred approach; and
2. communicate their plans to school and college leaders in a timely manner, in advance of briefing the media. 

Why are we saying this? We believe that government will make better decisions if it consults properly with the people who understand deeply what the implications of those decisions will be, and who will be responsible for implementing them. We also believe that school and college leaders will be better able to carry out those plans, and to reassure their communities about them, if they have been both involved in their creation and informed in a timely manner about their communication. 

 

What is the context? Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn announced in a speech in April 2019 that a Labour government would scrap the current primary national curriculum assessments, commonly known as SATs, including those taken at the end of Key Stage 2. 

Instead, Labour plans to bring forward proposals for a new system that would separate the assessment of schools from the assessment of children, understand the learning needs of each child, and encourage a broad curriculum aimed at a rounded education.

ASCL position: ASCL believes that high stakes test-based accountability has impacted negatively on primary education and requires review.

Assessments should inform planning in order to prepare children more effectively for the next phase of their education.   

Why are we saying it? The government’s recent steps to remove the most toxic examples of high-stakes accountability – the floor and coasting standards – are welcome. However, ASCL believe the government should review the negative effects of primary testing on children. These assessments should, we believe, from part of a more rounded set of indicators of school performance and effectiveness. 

Performance data should be used more intelligently to prepare all children for each step of their educational journey, supporting schools in attaining the very best outcomes for young people. 
 

What is the context? Governments implement performance measures in order to incentivise behaviours in schools that they believe are desirable. However, as schools and their leaders are held to account largely by those measures, including through publication in performance tables, perverse incentives and behaviours inevitably result from an over-focus on a narrow set of measures.  

ASCL position: ASCL believes that any data presented on a school’s performance should include a rounded set of indicators and, furthermore, that no single headline measure should dominate.

Why are we saying it? The government has taken steps recently to remove the most toxic examples of high-stakes accountability – the floor and coasting measures. This welcome development needs to be further built upon to lead to performance data being presented and used in a more intelligent, nuanced and comprehensible way. 

What is the context? Governments change performance measures in order to incentivise behaviours in schools that they believe are desirable. But in all cases, as schools and their leaders are held to account largely by those measures, including through publication in performance tables, other perverse incentives and behaviours emerge. The problem is that a focus on any single headline measure will inevitably undermine that measure, a phenomenon enshrined in Goodhart’s Law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases tobe a good measure."

ASCL’s vision document  Leading the Way: A Blueprint for a Self-Improving System outlined this problem and called for a broad set of external measures, alongside locally determined metrics which the school or group of schools believe give additional information about the context in which the school is working. This position was reinforced during discussion at Council in June 2019.

ASCL’s position: ASCL does not believe that schools can be effectively judged by any single measure; a more rounded set of indicators would give a clearer and more helpful picture of a school.

Further, the way the current single headline measure is currently presented is oversimplified and misleading.

Why are we saying it? The government has taken steps recently to remove the most toxic examples of high-stakes accountability – floor and coasting standards. This is welcome, but needs to lead to performance data being used more intelligently. For example, the public presentation of Progress 8 is accompanied by coarse gradings based on scores and, incorrectly, confidence intervals. These gradings can be highly misleading and difficult for the public to grasp.

What is the context? Currently, mainstream schools judged outstanding by Ofsted are exempt from routine inspection. HMCI Amanda Spielman has publicly stated that Ofsted wishes the DfE to remove this exemption.

ASCL position: The exemption from inspection for mainstream outstanding schools should be removed. Ofsted should apply the same approach to the conversion from section 8 to section 5 inspection that is used for inspection of good schools.

Why are we saying it? Given the changes to Ofsted’s inspection framework from 2019, it is right that all schools are judged according to the new criteria and approach, as this will provide assurance to parents and stakeholders. Furthermore, ending the outstanding exemption will provide assurance about safeguarding practices and allow inspectors to get greater insight into best practice, enabling this to be shared across the system.

Ofsted has recently introduced a more nuanced approach to the conversion of section 8 to section 5 inspections, which has helped to reduce the ‘cliff edge’ nature of inspections. If the exemption for outstanding schools is ended, these schools should be afforded the same nuanced approach as good schools. This will improve fairness and consistency in the inspection system and help to ensure inspection is supportive of all schools.