Benjamin Franklin told us that “the people heard it, approved the doctrine and immediately practised the contrary”.

When I read the proposed new Ofsted framework, I felt the same. Everyone knows the failings of our bloated and flawed accountability system, but we all carry on regardless.

If you want to know the likely outcome for a school’s Ofsted report and judgement, then just look at the data; not necessarily the Progress 8 or Sats scores, but the indicators for free school meal (FSM) eligibility, children who are looked after or the percentage of those from white working-class backgrounds.

In 2018, we learned from Ofsted that only 4 per cent of schools graded "outstanding" have 30 per cent or more children from white working-class backgrounds and who are eligible for FSM. Unsurprisingly, 58 per cent of schools with very low representation of white working-class children and pupils on FSM are graded as "outstanding".

Why, then, is Ofsted and presumably the Department for Education determined to perpetuate an accountability system that generally measures what we already know and, in the worst cases, reinforces what we are all trying to avoid?

On the surface, the new framework makes a laudable attempt to highlight the importance of an excellent curriculum, high-quality teaching and learning and exceptional pastoral care. At the same time, some effort has been made to reduce the importance of performance data pertaining to outcomes and on simplistic measures relating to behaviour.

Sadly, however, significant and fundamental issues remain.

Ofsted does not have the time, resource or capacity to scrutinise schools in a nuanced and really meaningful way. The new framework is predicated on the need to judge all schools in a uniform manner, preferably in as short a timeframe as possible. This is no way to judge hugely complex institutions that serve widely differing communities, families and children.

Why Ofsted is failing

And before everyone cries “low expectations!”, I have no issue with rigorous and challenging levels of scrutiny and accountability. Judgements must, however, take into account a range of complex factors that are mentioned above. Such complexity also extends to issues such as funding, the availability of teachers and the provision made by local authorities in areas such as speech and language, counselling and emotional wellbeing, to name but a few.

I repeat, effectively judging schools takes time, resource and money.

Every interested stakeholder requires an accountability system that is fair, rigorous and challenging. That system must also provoke meaningful improvements for individual schools, trusts and educational provision overall. A system based upon fleeting snapshot judgements cannot do this.

Currently, our education system stands at a crossroads. Headteachers are faced with a chronically underfunded system and, in many cases, a huge shortfall in the availability of high-quality teachers. A pernicious system of accountability has had a profoundly negative effect upon morale, trust and retention rates across all schools.

At a recent conference organised by the Headteachers' Roundtable, time and time again I heard superb school leaders talk of a need for radical change in how schools are inspected and judged.

Heads want an end to a blunt four-point grading system, which frequently hinders rather than helps future progress. All schools “require improvement” and all schools have strengths and weaknesses that should be highlighted and addressed.

The quality of teaching and learning and a genuinely inclusive curricular offer must be assessed over time. Here, peer-to-peer review and reports should be completed on a regular basis. They can then be independently moderated and scrutinised. Targets for entries into EBacc subjects should be scrapped – they undermine any attempt to offer appropriate learning opportunities to many students.

The quality of a school’s work with SEND, vulnerable and challenging pupils can only be truly evaluated when the provision and views of professionals, students and parents are taken into account. This cannot be skimmed over in just a day or two.

Safeguarding arrangements must be scrutinised frequently and this should be done by specialists who are independent of Ofsted.

Performance data – including that which is current and internal – has an important part to play in assessing pupils' progress and wellbeing, but clarity is required as to how each piece of data is weighted and considered.

In its report relating to FSM, ethnicity and judgements, Ofsted stated that it is “fully aware of the challenges faced by secondary schools in predominantly low socioeconomic areas, where traditional industries often no longer exist. Considering the issues raised here, is it any wonder that there are around 260 more schools in the most deprived areas judged to be less than good compared with the least deprived areas?”

It seems that currently Ofsted has heard it, approved the doctrine and immediately practised the contrary.

Jules White is the headteacher of Tanbridge House School in West Sussex, and founder of the WorthLess? campaign for more school funding