For anyone with an interest in school accountability for in England, the last few days have been fascinating. There has been such a lot to get our head around. The ‘scrapping’ of single headline Ofsted grades for schools with immediate effect, the publication of the independent learning review which was conducted by Dame Christine Gilbert to focus on the actions taken by Ofsted in response to the death of Ruth Perry and the communication of the findings of Ofsted’s Big Listen consultation has meant that Ofsted has been a major topic of discussion in all areas of the news media.
I wanted to record some of my own thoughts and responses to this news. I will begin by considering the scrapping of Ofsted grades only – and will return to the other areas in good time.
The announcement that Ofsted single grades will be scrapped with immediate effect appears to have been very warmly received. The announcement seemed to have been made in the early hours and so greeted us as we were waking on the morning of Monday 2 September, the first day of a new school year for many. The comments on social media and the soundbites and responses witnessed in the mainstream news media support this. On Monday it was the removal of these grades which formed the newspaper headlines. But it is worth reflecting on some other aspects of this announcement.
For me the most important element of the announcement was not simply that single headline grades would end, it was the reasons which were given for this. In the official statement from The Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP via the Department for Education1, it states that:
“Reductive single headline grades fail to provide a fair and accurate assessment of overall school performance across a range of areas and are supported by a minority of parents and teachers.”
The piece goes on to say:
“Single headline grades are low information for parents and high stakes for schools.”
This is not only accepting the high stakes nature of these grades, a feature which is now accepted to be harmful. It is saying that in themselves they are not fair or accurate, they are biased and misleading. Doesn’t it seem somewhat contradictory, therefore, that the four grades across the existing sub-categories (quality of education, behaviour and attitudes, personal development and leadership & management) will remain. Are we to consider these to be fair and accurate? And if so, is there evidence to support this? What is clear, however, is that the publication of such subcategories is just a holding measure until the introduction of the new School Report Card from September 2025.
In addition, the reference to the scrapping of headline grades with ‘immediate effect’ appears to relate only to inspections which take place after the announcement. At the time of writing (noon on 4 September 2024) there have been four inspection reports published since the announcement – all four have single headline grades. But if they are neither ‘fair’ nor ‘accurate’, surely it would be logical for these to be removed for all newly published inspection reports, even those where the inspection took place prior to the announcement? It is then only small, logical step to see the removal of all headline grades from all inspections. If they are now considered to be unfair and inaccurate, surely it does not make any sense to continue to publish this information, for any inspection, whenever it took place, on the Ofsted website? The website could be changed and reports could be ‘recompiled’ with the headline grade removed (with a brief explanation added that this new version replaces the previous report etc).
Another significant part of the announcement made on Monday, which attracted relatively little media attention was that the “government will continue to intervene in poorly performing schools to ensure high school standards for children” but that this will take a different approach to before. The approach up until now was for schools identified as Inadequate to be issued an academy order, forced to become an academy or to join a new academy trust. This often also was accompanied by staffing changes, including replacing the school leadership. This is a major element of the ‘high stakes’ nature of school inspection. Instead, there are signs that we are moving to a move positive paradigm:
“As part of today’s announcement, where schools are identified as struggling, government will prioritise rapidly getting plans in place to improve the education and experience of children, rather than relying purely on changing schools’ management.”
I would argue that this is a more significant move, than just the removal of single word headline grades, to reduce the high stakes nature of inspection and accountability and the issues which lead from this.
It has taken a little time to write this as I had such mixed feelings from the announcement on Monday. I have to say that relief was my main emotion – not joy. This came from the official acknowledgment and communication that things were not fair. These biased and inaccurate judgements were damaging to many. The were harmful to individuals, to schools, to communities. They were cruel. Inspections have become extremely unpredictable and inconsistent – this brings its own stress. Single headline grades should have been scrapped long before now.
It was difficult, however, to see so many in the public eye and in the media claiming to have been calling for this change for a long time. The teaching unions may have official policies around this – but have they been shouting for this change loudly enough? If they had, might these changes have been introduced years ago? It seems like on the one hand they were saying that single grades are a bad thing – but then have been, at least to some extent, complicit in accepting the potentially harmful implications for individuals, schools and communities. Everyone knew the emperor was wearing no clothes – but no-one wanted to be the one to call it out. Now everyone seems to be claiming to have been shouting that the emperor was naked for some time…
So what has brought about this change? The media repeatedly refer to the ‘tragedy’ of the death of Ruth Perry. The real tragedy is that it took her wholly preventable death to lead to this change. The excellent, powerful, persistent, eloquent, measured campaign led by Ruth’s sister, Julia Waters, has certainly played a major part. This also shifted the debate to a new dynamic. No longer was this ‘badly done to’ teachers moaning about the inspection regime. This was a bereaved family member saying that things need to change urgently and being prepared to do what is necessary to make that happen. That made it very difficult to use the same tried and tested arguments against. There was also the feeling that people could call out the significant problems with the inspection system – and that they were not a lone voice. That is a very powerful thing.
And what has changed?
Well, if I was the headteacher of the school with this ‘report’ I might not feel like very much has changed.
There has to be much more to come – and this has been promised by Bridget Phillipson. The scrapping of single headline grades is a good “first step” towards more meaningful reform of Ofsted. It is a strong statement of intent. There is also the promise of change from HMCI, Sir Martyn Oliver, which comes from the Big Listen. With this heightened pressure for real reform from the Secretary of State for Education, and the wider scrutiny and pressure that Ofsted are now under, we have to be hopeful that this is only the start of the story.
- Single headline Ofsted grades scrapped in landmark school reform. (2024). GOV.UK. Retrieved 4 September 2024, from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/single-headline-ofsted-grades-scrapped-in-landmark-school-reform