Last week, Ofsted unveiled more details of its revised inspection framework. Every proposed change is bound to trigger a reaction. This time we witnessed an online playground spat, as Ofsted lined up to protect its credentials against increasingly hostile taunts. There’s no doubt that some of the criticisms might have been framed more constructively. It’s also true that Ofsted seems unable to grasp why there is so much antipathy. But brusquely casting aside objectors as “powerful vested interests” is no way to cultivate good public policy.

If the inspectorate requires an initial sense check, here it is - a simple thought experiment. Ask yourself whether Ofsted has done more harm than good. Your response may tend towards one side of the argument or the other, but that’s not really the point. The purpose is to highlight that, quite remarkably, this question constitutes a legitimate basis for debate. This should be inconceivable for a public regulator. Her Majesty’s chief inspector evidently needs to listen carefully to detractors and demonstrate her openness to reasoned critique.

The inspection service has issued half a dozen revised framework documents in the past 10 years, vying with Microsoft for the frequency of updates. On some occasions, the next version has been issued within months of the previous. It is no surprise that this has contributed towards a constant sense of churn. Those Ofsted “myth busters” are tediously predictable, as the inspectorate seeks to address the after-glow of inspections from four or five years previously.

Across that same 10-year period, very little - if anything - has altered regarding what constitutes effective teaching, good quality learning and the dimensions of supportive, nurturing, school environments. This, of course, makes a mockery of the regularity with which there has been a renewed emphasis in Ofsted’s outlook.

Ofsted has declared its intention to issue its new framework focused on pupils’ curriculum experience. This represents a seismic shift. Ofsted previously operated with an overriding emphasis on data and compliance - not unlike environment health with its five stars for kitchen cleanliness. The proposed change places HMI into the elevated position of restaurant critics, entitled to make observations on the constituent ingredients and manner of presentation of the menu on offer. 

Ofsted should proceed with caution

It’s not necessarily unwelcome, but Ofsted should proceed with considerable caution. A hastily produced framework, imposed without consensus or extended pilot phase, will trigger another avalanche of time-consuming displacement activity. Such is the business of institutional self-protection. Given the scale of the workforce and the over-bearing influence of Ofsted, just one new requirement can readily generate a million hours of new evidence-gathering activity. 

Whatever the inspectorate does now will send ripples through the schooling system for years to come. We can already anticipate the next wave of well-intentioned, but ill-informed, workshops for school leaders: “Preparing your school for the latest new updated Ofsted framework.” And the inevitable cascading consequences. A sound framework, well-tested and communicated clearly, wouldn’t need this cottage industry of professional interpreters.

Above all, the new framework had better be informed by rigorous philosophical reflection and robust international research evidence on curriculum design. Ofsted would do well to model the highest standards of evidence-informed policy-making. In contrast, the recently issued “deep dive” commentary - on a skewed selection of England’s schools - appears no more robust than a sixth-former’s extended project.