Ofsted acknowledges inspection proposals are ‘too complicated’ 

Ofsted have acknowledged that their proposals for overhauling the inspection regime may be ‘too complicated’, ahead of the consultation on the plans closing on 28 April.

Writing in the TES Rory Gribbell, Ofsted’s director of strategy and engagement, said that ‘professionalism and seriousness’ had characterised the engagement they had received from school staff and other professionals during the consultation so far. While stressing that the inspectorate would wait to hear all feedback before making any final decisions, he acknowledged for the first time that ‘our proposed approach to grading is too complicated’

Ofsted had proposed to replace the previous system, where settings were graded on a four step scale from ‘outstanding’ to ‘inadequate’, with new ‘report cards’. Schools, nurseries and colleges would be graded in eight individual areas on a five step scale, ranging from ‘exemplary’ to ‘causing concern’. There would also be a separate evaluation of whether safeguarding standards were being ‘met’ or ‘not met’, and schools will also be rated on their sixth form and early years provision, if applicable.

However Mr Gribbell now says that Ofsted are ‘looking hard at how we can simplify what’s proposed, including considering carefully the feedback we’re hearing on the new top grade of “exemplary”.’ He also said they would be ‘looking again at the clarity of drafting between the grades “secure” and “strong”, so there is greater clarity on what we’ll be looking for.’ He noted that there had been ‘really positive reactions’ to the proposal to create an “inclusion” evaluation area. However, he said they had also heard from experts who were concerned that support for disadvantaged children, and children with special educational needs and disabilities, is not treated as a ‘bolt on’.

The acknowledgment that Ofsted may have to revisit aspects of its proposals is in contrast to the tone adopted by chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver when he addressed the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) conference last month. On that occasion he had talked about receiving ‘really encouraging’ feedback, along with ‘a small number of rather surprising responses’ which he suggested were ‘built on a misunderstanding of what report cards are’. He went to accuse ‘the most vocal critics’ of seeking a ‘low-accountability system’.

The more ameliorative comments made in Mr Gribbell’s article came in the same week as the results of an alternative consultation to Ofsted’s plans were published. The Alternative Big Consultation (ABC) ran between 25 Feb and 4 April, and was set up by former senior HMIs Frank Norris and Colin Richards, who said they were concerned Ofsted’s own consultation was asking school leaders to ‘take it or leave it’. The ABC received 708 responses, and found that 88 per cent of respondents felt the proposed ‘report cards’ were either ‘largely unfit’ or ‘unfit’ for purpose. Meanwhile nearly two thirds of respondents felt the proposed changes would be worse than the current framework. A full report of the ABC’s findings is available here https://tinyurl.com/uwm59v4v , but does acknowledge it’s ‘limitations’, including that it is not statistically representative, as those responding to it are ‘self-selecting’. It is also likely to have received far fewer responses than the official Ofsted consultation. Responding to the report, an Ofsted spokesperson said: ‘The consultation on our proposals for education inspection is open until 23.59 on April 28 and I would urge anyone with an interest to participate at www.gov.uk/ofsted’