Ofsted’s proposed new inspection framework is an improvement, though a limited one. It certainly faithfully reflects the statements made by the chief inspector over recent months.

Valuably, it places the curriculum at the centre of the inspection process. The inspection criteria helpfully focus on how the curriculum is designed ,implemented and evaluated; but curiously (and tellingly?) they fail to address the value or worth of that which is designed, implemented and evaluated. The framework does not explicitly espouse the rhetoric of being “knowledge-rich” but that is its underlying message. It does not acknowledge sufficiently that a curriculum worth its name needs to be knowledge-, skills- and attitudes-“rich”. Its implicit message is “knowledge and subjects rule, OK?” Not everyone or every school would concur.

The framework usefully rehabilitates the notion that “the quality of education” is central to the inspection process but why should we celebrate this as some sort of welcome change? Shouldn’t inspection always have had the judgement of the quality of education at its heart? The framework’s concept of “quality of education” seems curiously limited: why, for example, is personal development not included? Again, a limited mindset seems to be in play - “taught subjects rule, OK?”

A missed opportunity for Ofsted

Unlike its predecessors, the framework seems to be placing far less emphasis on performance-related outcomes. If that is the case, it is to be welcomed. Such outcomes are not referred to as such and only merit one indirect mention: in assessing learners’ achievement, inspectors are to judge how far this “is reflected in results from national tests and examinations”.

The cynic in me wonders whether this smuggling in of only one reference to tests is an ingenious, probably doomed, attempt to placate the undoubted opposition to previous outcomes-dominated inspections. Will future inspections really make such limited use of test and examination data? I doubt it.

There is, however, one fundamental shortcoming of the new framework and, tellingly, it is one that is not being consulted upon. The four-point grading scale for inspection judgements is taken as given; it is non-negotiable. If this, indeed, is retained then nothing truly fundamental or transformational will change in the relationship between Ofsted and schools.

Schools will remain fixated on those awe- or fear-inspiring numerical grades. Undue pressure, both from Ofsted and self-induced, will continue to weigh down on those schools desperate to retain their problematic “outstanding” designations. Those aspiring to that designation will be in the same situation. Many other “good” schools will worry about retaining their designation. Schools “requiring improvement”, let alone those dubbed “inadequate”, will be desperate to escape their absolute or relative ignominy.

There will be no substantial reduction in workload; there will be little or no reduction in second-guessing Ofsted’s demands; there will continue to be personal and professional casualties - victims of the overwhelming power of a single number or adjective. The proposed “sunlit uplands “of professional autonomy and creative risk-taking curricula will be as far away as ever. The fraught relationship between Ofsted and the teaching profession will remain fundamentally unaltered…

Plus ca change?

But it doesn’t have to be like this.

The chief inspector has claimed that the grading scales, including the particularly controversial “outstanding” one, are popular with parents and, therefore, need to be retained. However, in recent correspondence, Ofsted’s research director has indicated that parents’ views on this particular issue have not been explicitly sought as part of Ofsted’s research.

But what do parents actually want from a report of their child’s school? I believe that they want a considered view of the quality of education - one that is more broadly conceived than Ofsted’s “quality of education”. That view is best communicated not with a single overall effectiveness grade descriptor but with a concise, sharp, well-written introductory paragraph in an inspection report summarising the school’s strengths and weaknesses as they seemed to the inspection team at the time - no more, no less. That brief overall paragraph needs then to be complemented by a bespoke report which gives the readers a sense of what it’s like to be a pupil and a teacher in such a school.

There is no educational justification for reducing the complexity of a school’s provision, or even an aspect of that provision, to a single numerical grade aligned to one- or two-word grade descriptors. Ofsted needs to acknowledge and act but is not even consulting on this issue.

Unless it does change its position on grading, its suggested reforms - a focus on the curriculum, reduced emphasis on outcomes, better information to parents, reduced workload - stand no chance of being implemented. Not only that but the current dysfunctional relationship between Ofsted and schools will continue and be increasingly injurious to both parties and to the cause of education generally.

When will Ofsted ever learn?

Colin Richards is a former staff inspector for the school curriculum at HM Inspectorate of Schools