Ofsted has been warned that its subject-focused inspection framework risks putting pressure on schools to go beyond the national curriculum for fear of being seen as “failed” by the watchdog.

This concern was raised as the inspectorate’s national director of education, Chris Russell, faced school leaders’ questions at a Schools North East conference today.

A headteacher warned that the subject reviews that Ofsted has published this year are creating expectations on schools that are not covered by the national curriculum.

Heads: School leaders hold talks with Ofsted over pandemic inspection concerns

Review: What Ofsted thinks good science teaching looks like

Ofsted: The watchdog’s favourite subjects for a deep dive

Primary school head Pete King told the event in Newcastle that heads were concerned that primary schools could not meet the level of subject expertise being called for and could follow the national curriculum and still be “failed”.

Mr Russell acknowledged that there was a “danger” that new curriculum materials being published by Ofsted could cause heads to question what was being expected of them.

However, he said he wanted to reassure heads that Ofsted understood the context of primary schools, and the introduction of its curriculum-focused Education Inspection Framework has not resulted in a downturn in outcomes for primary schools.

Mr King raised concerns about Ofsted’s subject reviews, which have been published this year.

Mr King, a headteacher from Darlington, said: “I was here three years ago when [Ofsted chief inspector] Amanda Spielman talked about the move away from data-driven inspections, I think that is still to play out a bit but I think we all applaud that, . but can I just draw your attention to the increasing widening of the gap between the national curriculum and the expectation of you folks?   

“I don’t necessarily disagree with some of the stuff I read in the subject reviews but there is a level of expectation that comes out of that now that we have got to catch up with that isn’t represented in the national curriculum across quite a few of the subjects. 

“It is not just a philosophical point but we have broken the link between Ofsted  checking that we are doing the right things and the DfE setting the parameters, the accountability rules. 

“There is a danger that you are checking some of your own work but mostly it would have been handy if the DfE had been on board to modify the curriculum. Amanda [Spielman] said the national curriculum should carry the load and it just feels like there is an increasing gap between the two, and, as primary practitioners, we might not have the subject specialism to take on board.” 

“We are serving two masters and it worries me that we could follow the national curriculum and still fail in your guys’ eyes.”

Mr Russell said: “I appreciate there is a bit of a danger with the curriculum materials that we are putting out that, I think, they are really helpful, I think people have received them well, but I recognise that there is a danger that that could cause some people some anxiety because it could lead people to think, ‘Are we going to have unreasonable expectations?’

“I think, particularly at primary school level, I have heard that from some people. I have heard people say, ‘I am sure primary school inspection outcomes will go down under the EIF.’

“But that isn’t the case.  To give some reassurance about that, we don’t have a model that is about secondary curriculum specialists, subject leaders...we know it’s very different at primary, we know the challenges around that...and inspectors are absolutely tuned in to that and we have not seen that potential concern that people have expressed in terms of inspection outcomes.

“I hope that is reassuring. I do recognise, though, that the more materials we put out about curriculum, there is a danger that people will think, ‘What is the expectation here?’ So I think we have to do our bit to manage that as more materials come out.”

Nick Brook, deputy general secretary of the NAHT school leaders’ union, said: “The research reviews and subject reports are interesting documents that, over time, many schools and subject leaders may choose to engage with.

“However, we must remember that these are not statutory documents, and there should be no expectation from inspectors that schools are using them to inform their practice.

“We also need to be very mindful that many of these documents have been released in the middle of the Covid-19 crisis, where schools have had an overwhelming number of competing priorities; and many will simply not have had the time to engage with all the documents being released.

“Primary schools face particular challenges where the model of subject leadership is simply different to that in secondary schools.”