The end of the Second World War brought an election result that was the catalyst for the welfare state, the birth of the NHS and the state education system as we know it.

Seismic moments often cause us to pause and reflect. So, post-Covid, do we actually want everything as it was before? 

Our economy will certainly feel the impact, and that will play out in individual households, boardrooms and national organisations. Our public services will face immense pressure from a greatly reduced economy. And, if we thought the financial crisis sparked austerity, then we ought to be thoughtful now more than ever about public finance.

It is likely that all public-sector bodies will be required to manage on less. Inevitably, this will include education. We will need to look hard at the areas where we can respond. Cutting capital projects is an easy option, but capital projects can also kick-start the economy. The government is right to promote this stimulus. 

Instead, perhaps, we should look at Ofsted. 

A post-coronavirus curriculum

Ofsted and its new framework have provoked some exciting and thought-provoking discussion. But the framework has also raised concerns about Ofsted’s approach and relative rigour when compared with previous incarnations. 

Many leaders working in highly disadvantaged communities are rightly worried about the impact that limiting their curriculum flexibility will have on their pupils. Anyone following a three-year key stage 4 will see an advantage for students who have missed months of school time - is this a narrow curriculum? There are those of us who would argue that disadvantaged children need this help more this year than in any other year.

The current framework is predicated almost entirely on “curriculum”, which will probably be significantly affected in response to Covid. Some academy trusts and schools are already planning a post-Covid curriculum, heavily focused on interventions, to repair the damaging impact of school closures on the most deprived pupils. This gives rise to further challenges for Ofsted’s new framework. 

Today, 70 per cent of the Ofsted workforce are practitioners, and it is more essential than ever that they remain in schools, and that schools are not distracted by inspections. 

The perfect storm

There is the feeling of a perfect storm: a new framework, unlike anything previously produced, plus concerns from leaders about how reliable it can be, plus concerns about the impact on those working with the most disadvantaged, plus a venture into policy areas impacting on academy freedoms. And now a coach and horses is being driven through most schools’ curricula. 

I believe the time is right to ask if the huge financial cost of the current inspection process can be justified in the post-Covid economy. It would be difficult to see any return to normality - if desirable - that could take place within the next 18 months. And Ofsted itself has said that inspections will not start again until January next year at the earliest.

I suggest that the inspection process, post-Covid-19, needs to be more nuanced and intelligence-led. It would seem sensible to focus on safeguarding or inspections triggered by concerns raised by regional schools’ commissioners, local authorities or other key stakeholders. 

The practice of routine inspections should be abolished. A brave new world has opened before us: one where we value each other and respect the role we play, with a new appreciation of carers and - dare I say it - even for teachers and those who work in education. 

Time to revisit Ofsted

There seems little appetite for any return to a world dominated by an inspection system that will inevitably have increasing credibility challenges among school leaders. 

I have always been an advocate for an inspectorate, and a strong supporter of it. However, each generation has the right to renew itself, and the time is right to revisit Ofsted. I believe it should be a much-reduced and slimmed-down organisation. 

Ofsted has a role, and is needed. But it also needs to be rationalised to make it affordable financially and societally. I suggest it should inspect only in three key instances: 

• For safeguarding concerns.
• For concerns raised by parents, supported by the relevant regional schools’ commissioner.
• For concerns raised by a school’s regional schools’ commissioner.

There is a wide range of metrics already in place to support a more efficient and cost-effective inspectorate, and there is a pressing need to support public-sector finances. 

Do not misinterpret this as advocating for less accountability. I would urge the government to publish performance tables for exams taken in 2021. It is right to hold everyone accountable, if only to illustrate the impact of the large financial investments made. 

However - and more importantly - it is likely to show a chasm opening ever wider between the outcomes of disadvantaged students and the results of their peers. This must be a catalyst for change. Carpe diem.

Paul Tarn is chief executive officer of the Delta Academies Trust