Last November, Ofsted began inspecting under a renewed framework that had been shared with the education sector in September.
Inspectors have carried out well over 600 inspections in the past three months, and over 200 report cards have been published, which seems to be an appropriate time to share some analysis and draw some initial conclusions.
To use Ofsted’s own methodology and training materials, we must remember that inspectors are told that data is merely a “starting point” in inspection activity.
Therefore, when judging Ofsted’s new approach, we must remember that data alone does not give a complete picture.
A primary-secondary disparity
It is important to begin by saying schools have adapted well to the changes, and early indications are that the vast majority of providers are getting most of their outcomes in the “expected standard” category or above.
Chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver has called the “expected standard” an “exacting standard”, and it is pleasing to see so many schools reaching this high bar.
However, my first preliminary conclusion is that there is an emerging disparity between primary and secondary inspection. It must be acknowledged that the datasets are very different, with over 150 primary and just over 40 secondary reports published so far.
The data shows that providers in the secondary sector have a significantly higher chance of attaining an “exceptional” grade in all of the different evaluation areas.
This is most stark in Personal development and wellbeing and Leadership and governance, with 11 per cent of secondaries achieving the highest grade and fewer than 1 per cent of primaries in these same categories.
There is no logical reason for this disparity, and it therefore suggests an issue with the descriptors in the toolkit that lead to schools reaching the highest grade.
Overall, the “exceptional” grade seems to be poorly defined as it references learning and experiences that are transformative without clearly defining or exemplifying what that looks like across the sector.
Perhaps this has led to different applications in the two sectors?
Achievement needs attention
Meanwhile, the evaluation area resulting in the most “needs attention” grades at both primary and secondary is Achievement: 22 per cent of primaries and 22 per cent of secondaries received this grade.
Ofsted has included a description in the expected section of the toolkit that references attainment and progress being “broadly in line with national averages”.
It seems as if this statement, coupled with the secure fit methodology, is forcing schools into the “needs attention” category.
Inspectors will claim that the inspection data summary report and published data are only part of the justification for the grading arrived at after two days of inspection activity.
However, the data about gradings with regard to achievement seems fairly compelling, and Ofsted needs to review this as a matter of urgency, as it means schools working with our most disadvantaged communities (who are more likely to be below the national average for attainment) are being unfairly penalised.
We pointed this out to Ofsted at the launch of the renewed framework, and the data is now starting to prove our fears correct.
Attendance and behaviour
Another area that references schools needing to be broadly in line with the national average is Attendance and behaviour.
Similar to the case with achievement, we are starting to see patterns emerging here.
Some 18 per cent of secondaries have received the “needs attention” grade for this area so far, and when you delve into the detail, it often seems to be lower attendance rather than poor behaviour that has led to the judgement.
Headteachers fear that parents are seeing an orange dot on the report card for this area will make assumptions about pupil behaviour without reading the full narrative.
It is a problem created by the combination of the new report cards, secure fit methodology and national averages in the expected standard.
Once again, I would call on Ofsted to review this as a matter of urgency. Ofsted either needs to remove the statement about national averages or needs to decouple attendance from behaviour.
A positive end
To end on a more positive note, across secondaries and primaries, the two evaluation areas with the best outcome so far are Inclusion and Personal development and wellbeing.
Over 95 per cent of schools have achieved the “expected standard” or above in these two areas, and it underlines the time and effort school staff put into ensuring the most vulnerable people in our society are well catered for and looked after so they can thrive and realise their ambitions.
Overall, it is very early days to draw firm conclusions on the outcome of inspections on the renewed framework, but patterns are starting to emerge.
Generally, schools are getting positive outcomes of “expected standard” and above in most areas.
It proves that school leaders and staff have adapted well to the rushed implementation of the revised system. However, there do seem to be flaws in the toolkit based on these initial inspections, too.
Ofsted needs to respond now and listen to the profession. Changes are needed, and they need to happen before too many schools suffer the consequences of this renewed framework.
Andy Jordan is inspection and accountability specialist at ASCL
You can now get the UK’s most-trusted source of education news in a mobile app. Get Vlog magazine on and on
