It is deeply disappointing - but wearingly predictable - that the government has rejected calls to scrap single-phrase Ofsted judgements in its response to the Commons Education Select Committee published on Thursday.

The only idea it offers for addressing a broken system is where it weakly says: “In our view, the priority is to look for ways to improve the current system rather than developing an alternative to it. This includes considering, with Ofsted, the presentation of its findings and grades, and opportunities to highlight some of the detail sitting under the summary grade.”

To say this misses the point is an understatement. It is perfectly obvious the problem with single-phrase judgements cannot be solved by presenting them differently.

However, the government appears to have adopted a bunker mentality in which it is doubling down on a system that virtually everybody else - including the former chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw - agrees needs reform.

Serving its own interests

The clue to why the government’s stance is so depressingly tin-eared may be contained elsewhere in its response to the Education Select Committee.

After a cursory mention of how the overall grade “provides a succinct and accessible summary for parents” it spends the next three paragraphs setting out all the other reasons it wants to keep single-phrase judgements.

None of these has much to do with how well the system works for parents, schools or communities, but a great deal to do with how well it works for the Department for Education (DfE).

“For example,” says the government response, “we are able to say that nine in 10 schools in England have been assessed by Ofsted to be providing a ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ education for their pupils.”

It is difficult to see why this is of use to anyone other than the government as it has a habit of regularly deploying this statistic when talking up its record on education.

Missing the point

And, with an even greater lack of self-awareness, it goes on to say: “Ofsted’s overall effectiveness grade provides a gateway for schools to step forward and contribute to system improvement through the plethora of hubs.”

There you are then - the reason we need single-phrase judgements is so that we can form hubs - a device which often seems to me to be a substitute for proper investment in school support.

All of this takes us a long way from the point of inspections, which is surely to provide an assurance to parents about the quality of education and learning environment at a given school.

And the test of that system should be whether it performs this function well. It should not be how the DfE then uses that system for other purposes.

The problems with single-phrase judgements are clear and well-evidenced. They reduce everything that a school does - all its provision, the support it provides to pupils, what it does well, what it may not do so well - to a single label that cannot provide a rounded picture to parents.

Single-word judgements and ‘managerial mess’

That label has serious consequences.

It drives the high-stakes pressure that causes so much stress and anxiety among teachers and leaders, damaging wellbeing and leading to many people leaving the profession, and - when judgements are negative - stigmatising schools in a way that is totally counterproductive.

It is a system that comprehensively fails the most important test. It doesn’t work well.

But what the DfE’s response suggests is that graded judgements have been interwoven into so many other parts of its operations, it cannot face the prospect of untangling this managerial mess - certainly not this side of a general election.

It must be clear, even to those in Whitehall grimly hanging on to graded judgements, that the system cannot survive in its current form and will ultimately have to be reformed. Labour has stated its intention to do exactly that if it wins power, and, in any case, the consensus seems increasingly to be in that direction.

But I’m afraid that we appear to be stuck with single-phrase judgements in the short term, and not for any good reason, but because the government is so wedded to the way it uses inspection outcomes rather than the system itself being fit for purpose.

It is the epitome of the tail wagging the dog.

Pepe Di’Iasio is general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders

For the latest education news and analysis delivered directly to your inbox every weekday morning, sign up to the Tes Daily newsletter