The changes to the Ofsted school inspection system that were announced on Monday do not go far enough. A new mechanism for reinspection, when a school is judged inadequate due to weak safeguarding, will be introduced following the death of Ruth Perry, who took her own life after the primary school she led in Reading was downgraded. This and other adjustments may slightly ameliorate the experience of being inspected. But it is disappointing that Ofsted’s chief inspector, Amanda Spielman, and the education secretary, Gillian Keegan, have rejected the opportunity that the tragedy presented to overhaul a system that has outlived its usefulness.
Teachers, headteachers and their unions have complained for years about the toll taken by Ofsted inspections, particularly since the imposition of a framework under which inspectors attempt a detailed evaluation of the quality of education. Years of underinvestment and the pandemic have further raised pressure on schools. Perry’s death in January, following a report which judged her school inadequate, led to an outpouring of frustration. Her family’s conviction that Perry took her life due to stress was echoed by school leaders across England who have found inspections close to unbearable.
Events leading up to Perry’s death will be scrutinised in an inquest. But there is no need to wait for the coroner’s verdict to make the case that further reform of Ofsted is overdue. The argument in favour of the current one-word classifications of schools’ performance, on a scale from outstanding to inadequate, has always been that these serve parents’ need for the clearest information possible. Set against this is the damage caused by a negative judgment to morale and wellbeing. Given the current problems with recruitment and retention, it is a mistake by ministers to disregard growing evidence of the extent to which Ofsted puts people off working in schools. No one’s interests are served by a system that is intolerable to teach in for more than a few years.
Perry’s school was one of a small minority judged inadequate, having previously been outstanding. It is not hard to imagine the shock and disappointment that must accompany such a fall from grace. The additional support that has now been promised to school leaders, and the speeding up of complaints, are useful steps that should ease difficulties. But the problems with Ofsted go deeper. The question isn’t simply how to make the current process easier to tolerate, but whether it does more harm than good.
Ministers should pay more attention to alternatives that have been put forward. The report card model proposed by Labour is worth testing. Just as children can achieve a range of levels in different subjects, so schools could be recognised as excelling in some areas while struggling in others – rather than receiving one overall grade. Another option would be a simpler framework and an end to the distinction between good and outstanding.
Inspections are not, and have never been, the be-all and end-all in raising standards. Improvements are also driven by peer support arrangements between schools and specialist advice from local authorities and academy trusts. Yet while doubling down on a punitive inspections process, ministers are withdrawing funding from council education teams. This is the wrong approach. A robust but fair inspectorate that is capable of adapting to feedback should coexist with other systems to promote schools’ progress.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
