For decades, Ofsted has been the primary authority responsible for evaluating schools in England. Following the conclusion of their largest ever consultation, The Big Listen, these reforms aim to address long-standing concerns about fairness, pressure on school leaders, and the framework’s ability to assess the nuances of a school’s performance in a thorough yet concise way.
In this blog, we will break down the key changes to the Ofsted framework, explore some initial sector responses to these reforms, and discuss our views about the effectiveness of the proposed system, as it relates to our work in the education sector. In particular, we’ll tackle this from a data-oriented perspective to ask: “How effectively can the proposed framework represent a school environment?”
Why change?
The previous Ofsted framework relied on single-word judgements to evaluate school performance. This approach has been criticised for oversimplifying complex educational environments, failing to provide meaningful insights for parents, and setting high stakes for inspections. For example, a rating of ‘Good’ reveals very little about the specifics of pupil outcomes, attendance, safeguarding standards, or inclusive practices. Furthermore, a downgrading can have significant consequences for a school’s reputation, roll numbers, staff recruitment and retention, which can in turn, cause the school to fall into a downward spiral.
What’s new?
Following The Big Listen consultation, Ofsted proposed a new school assessment and inspection framework designed to address these concerns. Key changes include:
- Replacing single-word judgements with a school report card that evaluates institutions across 9 key areas (with two additional areas for post-16 and early years providers, where applicable)
- Introducing a five-point scale for each assessment area
- Shifting to full inspections for all mainstream schools. Any school rated as ‘causing concern’ or with a specific area graded as ‘attention needed’ will undergo follow-up visits. These visits will focus only on the identified areas and provide an opportunity for the school to improve its report card without having to wait for another full inspection. The extent of the school monitoring will depend on the severity of the concerns. You can read about how schools are classified as ‘causing concern’ and how the monitoring process will be rolled out in Ofsted’s framework announcement, here.
- A greater emphasis on contextual data. Inspectors will incorporate more demographic and local area data when assessing schools. While this practice is not entirely new, Ofsted has indicated a shift towards standardising its use, aiming to “provide an ever-more sophisticated picture of the local and demographic context a provider is working in”. This aligns with work we include in our school profiles, showing both the demographic makeup of a school population, how reflective a school’s cohort is of their local area, plus risk factors experienced by families in the school’s catchment area.
Response from the sector
Since the announcement, the proposed framework has faced significant criticism, particularly from unions and school leaders. A recent NAHT survey found that 76% of school leaders believe a “completely new framework and inspection methodology is required,” arguing that the changes fall short of the “deep and lasting system reform” they had hoped for.
Given that this represents one of the most significant reforms in Ofsted’s history – and is such a rare opportunity – Ofsted has been urged not to rush to meet “arbitrary deadlines” but instead focus on achieving meaningful, long-term change.
The NAHT released a similar statement saying inspections should not be about “judgement, failure, and condemnation” but instead foster a “constructive, professional, and helpful dialogue.”Currently, however, only around 2% of schools are in Ofsted’s category of concern, suggesting that, for the majority of schools, the purpose of an inspection is not to focus on identifying failings, but rather to highlight strengths and areas for improvement.
Regardless, many argue that the removal of overall grades in favour of more detailed, narrative-based reports would provide a clearer and fairer picture of the school.
Our Views
Usefulness for parents
At Mime, we believe a more detailed summary is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. However, there is still room to strengthen the narrative around each school, offering deeper insight into its values, practices, and learning environment.
Through our work with Camden on their new school report cards, we have seen firsthand the value of a more comprehensive breakdown for parents.
These report cards provide a clear, detailed view of key aspects such as school values, inclusive practices, curriculum, and teaching, backed by data to support their claims. They also incorporate testimonials from parents and students, providing valuable qualitative feedback.
Parents have responded positively to this approach, with feedback including:
- “Attention to detail is excellent. I was able to see exactly how the school supports its students academically, socially and emotionally.”
- “I appreciate the balance between academic results and insights into pastoral care and extracurricular opportunities. It gave me a full picture of the school.”
Another key takeaway from this work is the importance of involving schools in the design of the framework itself. The success of Camden’s approach stems from its continual collaboration with both schools and parents, ensuring that the final product meets their needs.
Our takeaways from this work highlight two critical lessons for Ofsted. First, detailed, narrative-driven insights have value for those who are interested in learning more. Second, actively incorporating feedback from parents, teachers, pupils, and school leaders is essential to the success of any new system.
Assessing inclusivity
Our research has shown that the inclusiveness of a school is one of the biggest factors affecting its overall headline data, particularly when considering the proportion of its cohort that has SEND or that is disadvantaged. For example, on average, schools that take a higher proportion of pupils with an EHCP are more likely to have higher levels of absence and lower attainment. The current system has received criticism for penalising schools for issues largely outside of their control (funding, local resources, demographics of their local area, etc). However, the ability of a framework to identify schools with less inclusive practices is crucial for it to properly evaluate a school and the well-being of its pupils.
At Mime, a lot of our work focuses on disadvantaged children and those with SEND. For example, we recently conducted a report looking at inclusion in schools across London. As such, we were pleased to see inclusion being incorporated throughout the toolkits and being a key component behind the grading of assessment areas, rather than solely in the inclusion assessment area.
A data perspective
While we recognise the benefits of a more detailed, narrative-driven assessment, removing ratings from school evaluations entirely would present challenges for data reporting and analysis. Without standardised metrics like grades, tracking trends across areas and monitoring progress over time at scale becomes more challenging. For example, many local authority and MAT school improvement teams use key performance indicators to increase the proportion of ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’ schools. While a grade may not offer the same level of insight as a narrative approach, we believe it remains an important component of any new framework. However, it may serve as just one element of the evaluation rather than the defining feature.
Final thoughts
Designing a new inspection framework is a complex challenge with a lot at stake. It requires balancing multiple priorities, including reducing inspection-related stress, allowing clear comparisons, and reporting information that is both simple to understand but also provides sufficient detail. Given these and other competing demands, it is unlikely any single solution will satisfy all stakeholders.
While the proposed Ofsted framework is not without its flaws and leaves room for improvement, we believe it represents a step in the right direction toward a more balanced and constructive evaluation system.
