Our Education programme head looks at the reforms
A series of announcements – that the government is scrapping single-word judgements, and the publication of Ofsted’s response to the Big Listen consultation – saw school accountability in England in the news again. We’re reflecting on the factors affecting the system, and looking at what’s happening next.
The Nuffield Foundation has funded a wide evidence base of research that helps to inform the debate around school accountability, and welcomes the government’s commitment to reforming Ofsted’s current approach to inspection, which has come in for much criticism. So, what are the key issues?
Important role in policy making
Ofsted is an important organisation that allows policymakers to measure school quality and intervene to address underperformance. It is notable, for example, that the establishment of Ofsted in 1992 heralded a period of more consistently high national standards in England. In contrast, Nuffield-funded research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) links major challenges in education in Wales to comparatively low levels of external accountability and less use of data. This shows that accountability mechanisms are vital policymaking tools for maintaining and enhancing school quality.
We know too from work by the Education Endowment Foundation that improving teaching is the most important lever available to boost pupil attainment. Policymakers want children to receive high-quality teaching, and school accountability is an essential mechanism in achieving this goal because it allows them to target improvement support. Reforms to Ofsted must therefore preserve this function.
Mixed value for school leaders
Ofsted reports can also be useful for school leaders when they help inform school improvement efforts. This is evident from recent research by University College London (UCL) which showed that headteachers and senior leaders can welcome the detailed diagnosis provided through Ofsted inspections.
However, it was clear from the evidence provided to the Education Select Committee that school leaders had several concerns about the inspection and reporting process including that:
- The overall judgement did not capture the full extent of a school’s work and causes stress and anxiety for school leaders and staff
- Reports were too short, formulaic and lacking in detail, making it difficult to identify and address issues effectively
- Inspection visits were too short to comprehensively cover the full inspection framework.
It is understandable that school leaders and staff experienced anxiety regarding an anticipated Ofsted judgement. The UCL research showed a poor judgement could cause reputational damage that began a vicious cycle of falling pupil numbers and high teacher turnover that made it more likely a school would become ‘stuck’ and harm its efforts to improve.
The research also showed that school leaders doubted the reliability and fairness of inspections. For example, schools operating under challenging conditions felt disadvantaged when inspections occurred very early in the academic year. Additionally, they believed that not all inspectors had adequate experience of working in difficult school environments, which prevented them from fully understanding the work they were doing and from making fair assessments. Some schools attributed their concerns to the brevity of inspections.
Other studies bear out similar worries. A report by Lee Elliot Major, Professor of Social Mobility at the University of Exeter, highlighted that a lower proportion of schools serving disadvantaged communities achieved an outstanding rating by Ofsted. He argues that this is despite many schools excelling at improving the progress of children who experience multiple barriers to their learning. Other research led by the University of Southampton explicitly considered the consistency of inspections. Although they found that Ofsted judgements were relatively consistent, there was nonetheless some unexplained variation between male and female inspectors, and between permanent and contracted inspectors.
The scrapping of the single-word ratings will address some of these concerns, and we are also pleased to see proposals for an ‘inclusion’ criterion in the new report format to look at how schools are supporting children from under-resourced backgrounds.
Questionable value for parent choice
Much is made of the role that Ofsted plays in informing school choice, and it is undoubtedly true that many parents look at Ofsted reports when choosing a school for their child. However, research by UCL highlights that where parents use Ofsted judgments to help select schools, these are often based on out-of-date information. The report also found little connection between schools’ Ofsted judgements and their pupils’ future academic or behavioural outcomes, or measures of parental satisfaction.
IFS research suggests that Progress 8 is a relatively reliable measure of performance and provides a better indication of the effect schools have on pupil attainment. So, for parents seeking information about academic outcomes, focusing more on measures such as Progress 8 could be more appropriate.
Where Ofsted reports can be more helpful, is providing insights into pupil’s experiences in the school itself and the quality of teaching, since the inspection process is well placed to observe and assess these areas. If the new report cards emphasise these areas, that would be an improvement over single-word ratings.
Reform
Ofsted’s announcement from its Big Listen consultation provides a significant body of evidence upon which to base reform. Our own response to the Big Listen suggests that as Ofsted holds schools to account, they should also seek to meaningfully support school improvement and positive teacher well-being. There is a recruitment and retention crisis in teaching and a recognised link between accountability mechanisms and teacher stress. We also know that good leaders have a measurable positive impact on their schools, particularly once they have acquired more leadership experience. The cost of losing experienced leaders is high and it is important that changes to the system support them to remain in the profession.
What next for Ofsted?
We convened a roundtable in spring to discuss the research evidence with policymakers and summarised the findings and recommendations in our response to the Big Listen. We were pleased to see that many of these recommendations have been incorporated within the planned reforms. Going forward, we will contribute to Ofsted’s consultation on a refreshed inspection framework, which we hope can preserve the strengths of the accountability system while addressing existing tensions. We hope this, together with other changes, will help ensure the teacher workforce can get behind the reforms, and that children receive the high-quality education they need and deserve.
