It is the one thing that every state headteacher fears. A single bad Ofsted grade has the power to condemn a school to failure. The recent death of the primary headteacher Ruth Perry, who took her own life while awaiting a report that downgraded her school from “outstanding” to “inadequate”, has reignited a debate about the watchdog’s purpose. It is widely loathed by the profession it scrutinises. Its punitive inspections have been cited as a factor in high attrition rates. Even its chief inspector, Amanda Spielman, in her first interview since Ms Perry’s death, admitted that a “culture of fear” surrounds the current system.
In England, Ofsted’s purpose is ostensibly to raise the standards of education. Yet there is little evidence that its inspections achieve this. The National Audit Office delivered a scathing verdict in 2018 that Ofsted “does not know whether its school inspections are having the intended impact”. Inspectors can lack experience in the age range or subject they are tasked with scrutinising. Since its creation almost 30 years ago, Ofsted has not published any research showing that its judgments accurately reflect the quality of education that schools provide. Uncertainty about the purpose of inspections is reflected in Ofsted’s changing framework, which has been overhauled five times in the last nine years.
People rightly expect scrutiny of public services, and parents should have a metric for gauging what happens inside a school. But a bad Ofsted score doesn’t help a school improve. Over the past decade, the main tool used by the Department for Education (DfE) for raising standards has been through academisation, with schools that are rated “inadequate”, or that have two or more “requires improvement” scores, forced to join multi-academy trusts. By 2030, the government plans for all schools to become academies. There is no evidence that this has led to better attainment. If the DfE is truly intent on raising standards, it needs to stop treating academisation as a magic bullet, and give struggling schools more targeted assistance and support.
In an attempt to defuse the anger currently directed at Ofsted, Ms Spielman said the inspectorate does not make decisions. Yet an Ofsted score has the power to determine what happens to a school. Those that have a series of below‑“good” Ofsted grades also experience higher teacher turnover, making it difficult to improve standards. Those in poorer areas are far more likely to be judged “inadequate”. Meanwhile, an “outstanding” grade makes it easier to recruit teachers and attract parents. Wealthier schools can hire consultants from a burgeoning industry of Ofsted experts, thus improving their chances of a “good” grade.
Ministers should listen to the warnings from demoralised teachers, many of whom plan to leave the sector. There are numerous ways to create a fairer system. Introducing a more nuanced set of indicators instead of a summary judgment – such as the “report card” suggested by Labour – would be an improvement. When a school is found to be underperforming, this should trigger additional positive support and a plan for raising standards that does not rest on academy status. Penalising struggling schools is no way to help them improve.
