The return of exams and grading to something approaching pre-pandemic patterns appeared to land reasonably well in much of the sector.

The usual processes seemed to work and the national grade profile was, as intended, something reasonably close to 2019. I imagine Ofqual and the Department for Education (DfE) breathed a collective sigh of relief on results day.

But as we navigate the lingering effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, it’s important to recognise that while exams and grading might have returned to something more “normal”, schooling itself is far from it.

Entrenched problems

Emerging signals in the results data suggest stark regional differences as well as a widening of the disadvantage gap.

Couple this with the live data we saw in the summer about the ongoing attendance challenges that many schools are facing and it’s not hard to see that, in very real terms, this is not 2019.

Many students are still grappling with learning loss, mental health issues and uneven access to educational resources - often in areas that are already disadvantaged.

As of last week, more than 100 schools also face disruption owing to concerns about the “crumbly concrete” known as RAAC (reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete) used in their construction.

So it is imperative that policymakers do not attempt to extend the “back to normal” narrative from exams to our accountability system. Schooling is not back to normal - as Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz might have put it: “We’re not in Kansas anymore.”

Take attendance, for example. Leaders are working hard to address the problem but as the children’s commissioner pointed out in Tes last week, solving this issue will require multi-agency work and won’t be achieved by schools alone.

The scale and complexity of the challenge isn’t really captured in Ofsted’s latest inspection handbook, which says inspectors “will expect attendance to be a high priority for leaders and for it to be improving towards and beyond national, pre-pandemic levels”.

The ambition to improve attendance is right but the pull towards a pre-pandemic national benchmark represents, for many schools, a dislocation between the accountability system and reality on the ground.

Better use of data

It is essential that the government and others exercise greater caution with regard to how school performance data is used and interpreted, and that we don’t return to a “pre-pandemic” lens too rapidly.

The turbulent context is going to produce some confusing signals in the results data. We may, for example, see schools with a once compelling track record suddenly experience a dip in their outcomes as a result of the attendance challenges they face. We may see trusts with strong records in turning schools around finding that the process is more challenging and takes longer in this new context.

Right now, the priority across the system needs to be to build capacity, ensuring that we have the right workforce and leadership to address local and national challenges.

We need more teachers to enter and stay in the profession, and we need schools and trusts with a track record of efficacy to be supported and trusted to do what they do best: improve education.

This is not, to be clear, a pitch to avoid accountability. A public accountability system is a vital facet of a publicly funded school system.

But it must be properly calibrated to ensure that it is achieving its aim - better education for children. In this abnormal post-pandemic world, this is going to require a mindset that is not the pre-pandemic “normal”.

Here are three approaches that policymakers could take to help attune the accountability system to the needs of the current context:

1. Retain school performance website’s name change

The government’s performance tables website was wisely rebranded in the wake of the pandemic from “Compare School Performance” to “Find and Check School Performance”.

This name change, allied with the removal of the comparison function, maintained public transparency but dialled down the risk of stakeholders making inappropriate comparisons between schools that had been differentially affected by the pandemic. This change should be retained in 2023.

2. Adjust progress metrics

The government should consider adjusting metrics such as the Progress 8 cap, which may not adequately account for the unique challenges posed by the pandemic, such as increased absences and a potential increase in the number of students achieving anomalously low results.

3. Ensure Ofsted is sensitive to school challenges

Ofsted should ensure that inspections are conducted with extreme care, especially in areas hit hardest by the pandemic.

Inspectors must be sensitive to the challenges faced by schools, particularly those in disadvantaged areas with inconsistent attendance rates, or that are working around the problem of failing buildings owing to RAAC or other estates issues.

This care should extend to how regulators use inspection outcomes. Schools and trusts with compelling track records need to be supported to achieve school improvement. This will require a recognition that, in some cases, the journey will be longer and the trajectory possibly more uneven than in the pre-pandemic world.

Children will gain nothing from inspection and regulation if it leads to knee-jerk responses that are insensitive to an organisation’s underlying strengths.

Accept the new reality

While it might be tempting for the government to revert to pre-pandemic norms, as it did with exams, taking such an approach with accountability systems would ignore the profound ways in which the educational landscape has shifted.

By adopting a more careful, context-aware approach to accountability, we can better support schools in their journey towards recovery and long-term improvement.

Steve Rollett is deputy chief executive of the Confederation of School Trusts, the national membership organisation and sector body for school trusts