Scrapping single-word Ofsted judgements would make the system more opaque and lead to people picking out phrases from school inspection reports “like a theatre review”, schools minister Nick Gibb has said.
Giving evidence to the final Commons Education Select Committee inquiry session into Ofsted, Mr Gibb told MPs that the “simplicity” that one-word judgements provide was important.
He warned that removing the overall inspection grade could lead people to focus on sections of a report, which would not provide a balanced view.
MPs also heard from Ofsted’s outgoing chief inspector Amanda Spielman, and Juliet Chua, director general for schools in the Department for Education.
Today’s session concluded the evidence collection of the inquiry, which has questioned representatives of teaching unions, parents, pupils and governors about their experiences of the inspectorate across three separate hearings.
Here are six key findings from today’s session:
1. Gibb defended single-word Ofsted judgements
Mr Gibb told MPs he supported single-word Ofsted judgements for schools, amid calls for them to be scrapped.
He said: “I think it gives parents the clarity they need. Although we encourage parents to read the whole report, most parents have other pressures on their lives…So I think a one-word judgement is good.
“If there wasn’t a one-word judgement, I think people would pick out things from the report, in a way, like a theatre review and I am not sure this would necessarily reflect a balanced view of the school.”
He added: “I think the simplicity of it is important - you can overcomplicate things and from the complication comes opaqueness.”
During her evidence session, Ms Spielman said that parents not only value “outstanding” or “good” judgements, but added that a lower grade can also be a “reassurance” that the problems in schools are being recognised.
The “consequences” of a poorer judgement grade was the real issue, Ms Spielman added. She also told MPs that a move to a binary two-grade system would add even “more weight and pressure on that boundary”.
Former chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw told the committee in its previous Ofsted inquiry session that he no longer believed in single-word inspection judgements. Labour has said it will consult on scrapping single-word judgements and replacing them with a score card, if it is elected.
2. Gibb claimed the MAT system is too new for inspection
Asked by committee chair and former schools minister Robin Walker whether multi-academy trusts should be inspected by Ofsted, Mr Gibb said that he would not recommend this at the moment.
“The whole academy landscape is evolving and is new,” he told the committee.
He added: “To say Ofsted should inspect MATs, you have got to know how a MAT should be run and that is still evolving.
“The danger of Ofsted going in and saying ‘you should have this, this and this’ is that they may not be inspecting against best practice.”
Ofsted currently does not have the power to inspect MATs. It carries out voluntary MAT summary evaluations, in which it produces trust-level findings and recommendations after inspections at schools in the same trust.
Tes revealed last month that these checks are now on hold until the end of this financial year.
3. Double RI intervention adds pressure on schools and MATs
Ms Spielman told the committee that the introduction of government intervention for consecutive “requires improvement” judgements has “clearly raised the stakes” of inspections for schools and MATs.
“We do feel and see that pressure coming through into inspections,” she told MPs.
Schools that receive two judgements of “requires improvement” or worse from Ofsted in a row can now be classed as coasting by the DfE. Since last year, the government has been able to issue warning notices to, rebroker and academise schools in this category.
Tes reported last week that school leaders are warning this new threshold is resulting in some schools being identified as underperforming by the department as a result of their Ofsted grades improving from “inadequate” to “requires improvement” - a situation the Association of School and College Leaders described as “absurd”.
4. Ofsted is ‘not an improvement agency’
Ms Spielman stressed that Ofsted is “not an improvement agency” after being questioned about the impact of inspections.
This statement was also echoed by Mr Gibb during his session, who instead called the watchdog a “diagnosis tool”.
Ms Spielman said: “Our job in the system is the diagnosis; other people have those responsibilities for support and improvement.
“But we do, of course, take a strong interest in whether inspection acts as a force for improvement in the system.”
Questions were put to both Ms Spielman and Mr Gibb about the impact of Ofsted inspection.
MPs also referred to evidence provided at an earlier session by Ian Hartwright, the head of policy at the NAHT school leaders’ union, who had told MPs that Ofsted had been unable to evidence that inspection leads to improvement.
5. Sharing training materials could encourage a ‘tickbox’ approach to inspection
The idea that Ofsted inspectors who also work in schools have an “unfair advantage” is a “myth”, Ms Spielman told MPs.
She said that the inspectorate already shares many materials, but does not share resources included in interactive training sessions of its inspectors.
She raised concerns that sharing slides from this training would result in some “terrible bastardisations” of the materials, with schools using resources that they had not been trained for.
She also added that she did not want to encourage a “tickbox” approach to inspections.
Ofsted has previously refused to publish training materials for Ofsted inspectors, warning that it could result in “increased and unnecessary workload” for teachers.
6. Spielman ‘horrified’ trainees were being told to do things for Ofsted
Ms Spielman reported that she was “horrified” to hear from trainee teachers who told her they had been told they “must do things because of Ofsted”.
She said this happened during a visit to an initial teacher training provider.
Ms Spielman added: “I’m really concerned that people use us to push junior staff in doing more than they need to.”
