I was speaking at a debate in Rugby last weekend, and was asked: “If you were to start designing school accountability from scratch, what would you keep and what would you get rid of?” I re-phrased this as: “What would I replace Ofsted with?” 

The new Ofsted framework for inspection will come into effect soon, and has already drawn criticism from union leaders such as Mary Bousted, politicians - including Layla Moran - and headteachers and educationalists, among them Russell Hobby, Jules White and Stephen Tierney. My main gripe is not that Ofsted wants to re-imagine itself as an organisation that now cares about the “quality of education” rather than the quality of data, but that they are seemingly going to keep their two-day, in-out inspections, and the four-point grading system that brands some schools with a headline that is often as inaccurate as it is damaging.

How can you assess the quality of education in a school in two days? Apparently, it will be done through a combination of lesson observations (dozens over the two days), work scrutiny (inspectors will apparently look at between six and 10 books from 100-200 students) and by talking to teachers about how and why they teach a particular unit of work. Schemes of work might also be looked at, as well as whether the types of activities selected by the teacher effectively enable students to meet the curriculum intent. 

Gaming the system

The problem is that the opportunities for gaming the system and for unjust judgements to be made will probably go up with the new framework rather than down. The Gates Foundation found (on graded lesson observations) that, if a lesson is given a top grade by one observer, there’s a 78 per cent chance that the second observer will give a different grade. If a lesson is given a bottom grade, there’s a 90 per cent chance that a second observer will provide a different grade. Although Ofsted won’t technically be grading individual lessons, the inspectors will be making judgements on what they see and that will feed into an overall judgement. It’s likely these judgements will be wrong. 

I always giggle when looking back at Twitter’s “no observation” trend where teachers shared their observation-feedback horror stories. I particularly enjoyed this one: “I got told my lesson would have been ‘outstanding’ if I had removed a dead plant from the back of the classroom,” said Claire Round. Despite this being an extreme and comic example, you could replace the dead plant at the back of the classroom with any particular reference point you like. The point is, the observer will bring their own preferences, their own organisation’s preferences and the latest educational fads into that classroom with them, whether they want to or not. 

The same is true outside lessons. One can’t help but think that Ofsted will be looking for the slightest hints of cultural capital in action. An inspector might have Sean “accidentally” bump into him while playing some Mendelsohn on his violin: “Oh, fancy seeing you here, Mr Inspector, I’m just engaging in my normal routine of self-enrichment.” 

In the classroom, there might be gaming. It’s long been argued that Ofsted is suffering from a pedagogical bias. For example, of the 33 schools it used for its research study into best practice last year, a third were described by Ofsted as having a “knowledge-rich curriculum”. Earlier this year, I was among those who questioned the make-up of Ofsted’s curriculum-advisory group, as it seemed to be stacked with those of a more traditional pedagogical slant. Of course, this was denied by the inspectorate. 

Fraught with problems

Ofsted is becoming more evidence-informed, but what is the evidence and where is it coming from? How does it relate to classroom practice? If I was a gambling man, I’d hasten to bet that scattering retrieval practice, cognitive-load theory and spaced learning everywhere, as lesson activities or concepts in a scheme of work, you’d be hedging your bets for a better reception from inspectors. None of this chimes well with Ofsted’s own clear proclamation that they “don’t advocate or recommend any particular teaching style”.

Drawing any conclusions from student work, even in tandem with other sources, is fraught with problems. In the average inspection under the new framework, they’ll be carried out by non-subject specialists tasked with understanding some very complex issues from a very small sample. Exercise books can be gamed - they can steer inspectors down certain lines. On the flip side, you might have a school that doesn’t game anything, and ends up with a “requires improvement” judgement. Sometimes, it’s simply about the questions asked on the day, about who is asked them, about timing and given circumstances. It should never come down to that. 

How many Ofsted judgements are correct? Ofsted’s own annual survey in 2018 revealed that 51 per cent of teachers surveyed said they “strongly or slightly disagree” that Ofsted is a trusted and reliable arbiter of school standards in England’s schools. 

Curriculum is the new Progress 8

Ofsted has workload consequences. I would like to think they are unintentional consequences, but they are undeniably significant. I’ve heard from many middle leaders who have been asked to rewrite their schemes of work to include “implementation, intent and impact”. I’ve heard of primary-school teachers asked to rewrite entire curricula. I’ve seen courses on curriculum offered to headteachers, already under huge pressure to be curriculum experts. Whether Ofsted want this or not, they are creating it. School leaders will panic and make mistakes under pressure. Curriculum is the new Progress 8 score.

I was asked during the debate on Saturday what I’d do instead. I pointed to Finland, Canada and other countries that rank high in the Pisa rankings but don’t have an external inspectorate making high-stakes judgements on schools. In Finland, teachers have a much greater say, trust is placed with them to hold themselves and each other to account. In England, no such trust seems to exist. 

My solution is twofold. First, scrap gradings. Replace them with an annual one-page summary, outlining a school’s strengths and areas for development, as well as a tick or cross on health and safety, safeguarding and (possibly) behaviour. Replace an external inspectorate with a collegiate peer-led system involving long-term and consistent visits between school leaders in a triangle of schools in a similar context. Fund the change using Ofsted’s £140 million budget. Use the £100,000+ in bonuses awarded to the Ofsted leadership team each year to reward schools who contribute more widely to the new programme. Ofsted may have bought themselves some time with the new framework, but the battle will soon resume again for its right to exist within education.

Thomas Rogers is a teacher who runs rogershistory.com and tweets @RogersHistory

For more columns by Tom, view his back catalogue