There is a revolution in school inspection just around the corner and yet few appear ready for it - quite possibly including Ofsted itself.

It is no secret that Amanda Spielman intends to use her tenure as Ofsted chief inspector to push greater depth of thinking about curriculum within schools, something that she believes has been missing for a number of years. 

This has the potential, if handled correctly, to be a paradigm shift for schools. There is a growing body of evidence, explored by the likes of Dylan Wiliam and Tim Oates, that suggests that curriculum is a hugely important factor in influencing outcomes.

So much, so good.

But those in the know are worried. As ever with education, while the idea might be good, insiders are asking whether the sector is being given the time to prepare itself to truly take advantage.

Are we looking at another rush job?

Timing is a huge issue, not least of all because the new emphasis on curriculum will come as soon as 2019, with the publication of the long-trailed new inspection framework. In this document, it is likely that inspectors will be instructed to demand evidence of how informed discussion of curriculum is influencing the school’s practice.

The huge question is whether many heads and leaders are currently in a position to answer compellingly such questions and whether many inspectors are currently in a position to ask them - or, indeed, to correctly analyse the responses they get.

What is largely undeniable is that Spielman’s insight is right: currently schools - even academies with their freedoms - are not used to being challenged about what they teach, why they teach it and how it fits together. One could get into an argument about whether this is a legacy of the accountability regime and the national curriculum or issues even longer term than that - however, one would need a whole other article for that. 

The risk of a rush job

But is it really reasonable to expect schools to have reversed this status quo in little more than a year? There is a danger, with Ofsted breathing down their necks, that schools will turn to short-term, out-of-the-box solutions that look good but have no impact.

However, this is not just about schools’ state of readiness. Can Spielman really be confident that her thousands of inspectors will be ready to inspect something so complex and multi-faceted as curriculum design? Inspector quality is not what it should be and the inspectorate continues to haemorrhage talent. It seems unlikely that there would be any consistency of judgement.

This brings us on to the next area of major concern. Who decides what a good curriculum looks like? This is an area of enormous subjectivity, which could prove tricky for an organisation that is supposed to be objective.

How can its inspectors’ judgements be expected to resist the political winds? Spielman is very clearly on the side of those who espouse a “powerful knowledge” curriculum. How would Ofsted avoid this position informing inspectors’ perspectives? Should it even try?

Assuming it does want to be neutral on such issues, will Ofsted be able to guarantee that a school with a well-thought-out but explicitly progressive curriculum - say School 21 in East London - get a fair hearing? Would it be treated as an equal of, say, the overtly traditionalist Michaela Community School in Wembley? Who, pray, will define good curriculum design? Does Ofsted really have a handle on how it might compare and contrast such curricula?

These and many more questions remain unanswered, and yet this profoundly important change in education is only a few months away. Schools should be worried.

Ed Dorrell is head of content at Tes