Multi-academy trust leaders have questioned the consistency of Ofsted judgements that result in schools run by the same MAT, using the same approaches, being graded differently, it has emerged.
The concerns have been revealed in an annual report of the Queen Street Group (QSG) being published tonight.
The report outlines a series of issues that the organisation’s members have raised about school inspection.
These include concerns about the inconsistency of judgements, “unfairness” in Ofsted’s interpretation of the evidence and the complaints process being “biased” in the inspectorate’s favour.
The report reveals a dossier of “concerning trends”.
The QSG produced it earlier this year because of the “depth and breadth” of concerns about Ofsted expressed by leaders at one of the group’s meetings.
The QSG is a network of trusts that formed in 2018 and has since grown to include 36 trust chief executive members.
In the new annual report, the organisation describes itself as “seeking to articulate the range of viewpoints of its members who serve very different communities throughout England”.
‘Frustration and anger’
On Ofsted consistency, the QSG report said: “The growth of trusts that are developing common approaches to curriculum, pedagogy and behaviour across a number of schools throws into sharp relief [a situation] where the judgement in one school is that an aspect requires improvement, whereas in others, the same practice is judged good.
“This inconsistency extends to the evaluation of impact; it is increasingly hard to understand how this is done when inspectors routinely ignore published pupil outcome data.”
The report also raises concerns about how evidence is interpreted by inspectors.
It says: “No one disputes a judgement which is supported by a wide and fair evidence base. A major cause of frustration and anger for leaders is where practice undermines this principle.
“Such practices include instances where inspectors give undue weight to opinion and anecdote over objective evidence, such as when individual comments are allowed to override the evidence gathered in Ofsted’s pupil/parent surveys, or in attendance and behaviour data.”
The report reveals that the QSG members also raised concerns that a high turnover of HMIs and inspectors is resulting in a number who lack senior leadership experience in schools, and lack “the experience and permission to make sensible judgements based on overall context and evidence”.
Tes revealed last week that four in 10 senior inspectors employed by Ofsted in the past three years have never been a headteacher.
‘Ofsted is its own judge and jury’
The QSG report also raises concerns about the process for appealing against Ofsted findings.
It adds: “Chief executives have little confidence in the system of appeals when they have complaints about practice. Ofsted is its own judge and jury.
“The response is invariably that the judgement is supported by the evidence base, with no independent scrutiny of whether this is justified.
“Heads are reluctant to raise issues during inspection because they are fearful that this will bring about a negative counter-reaction.”
A Tes investigation revealed a big increase in the number of reports that have been changed as a result of complaints.
However, inspection grades changed in less than 1.5 per cent of formal complaints closed by the watchdog in 2022-23.
Changes to process
Ofsted recently closed a consultation on changing its complaints process handling to allow schools to make formal complaints and also go to an independent body more quickly.
However, sector leaders have dubbed this process a missed opportunity as it has not included plans to allow an independent body to challenge inspection findings or reopen inspections.
An Ofsted spokesperson said: “Our inspections are carried out by highly trained teams that draw on a range of evidence before reaching a final judgement.
“We aim for all our inspections to be carried out professionally and sensitively, and all reports are subject to a thorough quality assurance process.
“However, we are always open to improving the way we work, which is why we recently consulted on our complaints process to ensure school leaders feel that the process is fair and gives them a chance to contribute effectively.”
