My phone rings. A friend is searching for a school for his daughter. He has read all the Ofsted reports of the local contenders and wants to talk them through.

“What is the difference between ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’?” “How reliable is the judgement on behaviour?” “What if the head leaves? Does the judgement still count?”

I wait patiently for his threads to unravel. It’s clear that his choice will be based on these reports. And yet it is also clear that his understanding of the context of those reports, and how they compare, is minimal.

“Have you visited?” I ask. “I mean, outside of the official open day. Have you chatted to teachers, parents and the head?”

The question wasn’t meant as a criticism. Instead, it was more of a plea.

I have had so many conversations like this over the years that I’ve been at Tes. I believe there is a place for an independent body to provide an informed overview of a school to parents, but I believe this overview should be heavily contextualised and only one part of how a parent judges a school.

I also think it needs to be accessible: most Ofsted reports read like a survey of your house - all technicalities, no heart - and they are written in the language of education. Hence, the rating tends to do all the heavy lifting in the final decision of parents. To me, that’s not an informed choice of school.

By visiting and chatting to those who work in a school and the parents, you get a broader view. Sometimes your first choice doesn’t feel right. Other times your last choice becomes your first because you buy into what the staff are trying to achieve.

Different priorities

So many of those whom I have told to “go visit” have changed their minds afterwards. That isn’t a reflection on the schools, as such, but on the fact that parents have different priorities and tastes - and it is important the system caters for that reality.

At present, it doesn’t do this well. For some time now, it has felt like we’re being edged towards uniformity - a combination of Ofsted, accountability metrics, prescriptive guidance, the narrowing of research horizons to “set texts”, and a policing of pedagogy via ministers and social media is gradually eliminating variation between schools.

Even if we push parents to consider more than just Ofsted reports, how much choice is there really? I’d argue less and less.

So I was delighted when I read the comments of Rebecca Boomer-Clark, CEO of Academies Enterprise Trust, in the magazine this week. She explains that “no matter how [a school] is performing or what judgement it has above its door, there are pockets of brilliance and real expertise that shine brightly”.

She also talks about the importance of the differences between schools: “Diversity and difference … and the fact that our schools are so intrinsic to their local community and context is something we should never lose.”

And she states that, were she to become education secretary, she would avoid the list of favoured schools to visit and search out the ones no one in Westminster has heard of, so she could get a “fresh perspective”.

This is the language of choice, context and innovation. Boomer-Clark has huge power to work against that uniformity movement and she should be commended for doing so.

But we need more voices in power doing the same. We need more voices urging care around research evidence to ensure that it is broad. We need more voices questioning why inspection has become the sole arbiter of school performance among parents.

And most of all, we need more voices questioning the government about the fact that it talks a good game on parental choice, but then puts in place a system that makes it incredibly difficult to achieve the variation in provision that enables you to find the right fit for your family - and your child.

Jon Severs is editor of Tes

This article originally appeared in the 19 November 2021 issue under the headline “School choice should reflect the variety of educational life”