The body representing multi-academy trusts has called for a review of Ofsted’s four-judgement grade inspection system for schools, in a paper seen by Tes.

The Confederation of School Trusts also says Ofsted should urgently check the reliability and validity of its inspection framework, and that this work should not wait for the appointment of a new chief inspector next year.

And it proposes a review of Ofsted’s complaints process - introducing independent oversight and the capacity to reopen inspection judgements. 

These recommendations are part of a new discussion paper on how Ofsted should be reformed, produced today by the CST.

• Background: Academy trust body questions reliability of Ofsted findings
• Research: Male inspectors more likely to give higher Ofsted grades to primary schools
• Exclusive: Next Ofsted chief inspector ‘needs to restore schools’ trust’

The paper has been produced amid concerns from school leaders about the reliability of the current curriculum-focused inspection framework that Ofsted introduced in 2019.

Here are its key recommendations:

Ofsted’s four inspection grades should be reviewed

The CST paper says that Ofsted’s use of four grades for schools - ”outstanding”, “good”, “requires improvement” and “inadequate” - should be reviewed.

It highlights that 88 per cent of schools are currently judged “good” or better. The report suggests that, given that the school system is on a stronger footing and that the government is working on developing a more effective regulatory system, “it is the right time for government to review whether the cost/benefit trade-off of its current approach to grading is right”.

The paper, written by CST deputy chief executive Steve Rollett, says that the law does not require the four grades that Ofsted uses.

It adds that it is prescribed in law that inspections must report where a school is “causing concern” and requires special measures or requires “significant improvement”. It adds: “These are effectively the basis upon which ‘inadequate’ judgements are issued.”

The paper suggests that Ofsted could move to a binary grading system whereby schools are found to be causing concern or not - without needing any new legislation.

Ofsted should ‘urgently’ review the reliability of its current framework

The CST paper also calls on Ofsted to urgently review the reliability and validity of its Education Inspection Framework (EIF).

This follows research showing that under previous inspection frameworks, male Ofsted inspectors were more likely than females to give higher grades to similar primary schools, and that the full-time HMIs gave lower grades than contracted inspectors.

In the new CST report, Mr Rollett says: “The recent research paper from Bokhove, Sims and Jerrim raises important questions about the reliability of inspection outcomes.

“The paper calls for more research to be undertaken in this area, in line with the commitments Ofsted made previously. This research should be carried out urgently.”

The paper also says that this process should not wait until a new chief inspector starts in January 2024, adding: “Starting the research programme at this point unnecessarily delays the insight gleaned from the research and risks perpetuating any issues - or [delaying] reassurance - that might be identified for longer than necessary.”

Last month the CST published a paper that raised concerns about whether Ofsted gathers enough evidence to be able to form a judgement about the quality of education in a school.

Questions over how Ofsted uses exam and test data 

When Ofsted’s curriculum-focused EIF was launched in September 2019, the watchdog said that it would place less emphasis on exam and test results and focus more on curriculum and what it described as the substance of education.

Concerns were raised during the early months of its use by several high-profile MATs, which suggested the framework penalised trusts that were focused on achieving academic success with challenging cohorts.

The CST paper does not suggest Ofsted move away from an emphasis on curriculum. However, it does reflect concerns about the way in which a school’s academic results are fed into inspection judgements.

It recommends that Ofsted should provide reassurance “to stakeholders who are concerned that pupil achievement is underplayed in some inspections by making clearer how the inspection methodology includes the use of achievement data”.

The paper also says Ofsted should periodically review and publish an analysis of the relationship between achievement data and inspection outcomes.

Overhaul complaints system

Another key recommendation in the CST report is to reform Ofsted’s complaints system.

The report says: “Ofsted’s complaints process is perceived by many leaders to be ineffective.”

Ofsted has a two-stage (informal and formal) complaints process, and schools that are still unhappy can ask for an internal review and then an independent one. However, the independent review does not include the power to change an inspection judgement.

The new CST report says: “Some [school leaders] doubt whether complaints will be upheld at stage two, and beyond that many feel the process is pointless because there is no opportunity to impact on the judgement itself. Steps need to be taken to allow for an appeal after stage two, with the power to reopen the judgement in appropriate circumstances.” 

Ofsted has declined to comment.