Nine principles: A blueprint for Ofsted 'report cards'

While no timeframe has been set-out, the Labour Party has indicated that it will introduce a school accountability system based on a report card model.

In a bid to influence the impending debate, the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) has published an 11-page discussion paper setting out how such a system should work in practice.

The paper states that any reforms to introduce a report card-style model must involve three things:

1. A new, slim set of statutory standards, which all state schools would be expected to meet.
2. Inspections that “carefully and consistently” judge whether or not schools meet these standards.
3. A system in which schools that do not meet the standards are supported to do so by their trust or local authority (unless there are concerns about the capacity to provide such support).

Current chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver has promised to look at single-phrase judgements, which have come under scrutiny following the suicide of headteacher Ruth Perry following the inspection of her school. However, Ofsted has since said that it is a matter for the Department for Education.

The ASCL paper acknowledges that report cards could be “a complex proposition” with “many potential unintended consequences”.

It adds: “It is made even more challenging by the complex structures within which schools in England now operate, with some schools remaining under local authority oversight, and others part of multi-academy trusts with very different approaches to control and delegation.”

Nonetheless, ASCL sets out nine principles for any report card-based model:

1. It should start from a clear articulation of what key stakeholders most value in the different phases of education and be aligned with any review of curriculum and assessment.
2. These priorities should be worked up into a new, statutory, set of standards for state schools. These standards should be a “slim” as possible.
3. The standards should encourage collaboration rather than competition between schools.
4. The standards should have a strong focus on provision for pupils with SEND and those living with disadvantage.
5. Schools should be held to account against these standards – and solely against these standards.
6. The government will need to identify, in collaboration with the sector, appropriate proxies to indicate whether or not a school has met these standards.
7. The model must be flexible enough to work for schools in different circumstances. It should also take into account local context and cohort characteristics, without lowering expectations.
8. Careful consideration should be given to whether there is a place for schools to include some of their own metrics as part of a national accountability system.
9. It should be clear what the consequences of not meeting any of the standards would be. Intervention in these circumstances should be intelligent and proportionate.

When it comes to intervention and improvement, the ASCL paper suggests that schools meeting all the standards should be trusted to source and implement their own improvement within existing oversight structures (i.e. their local authority, diocese or MAT).

It adds: “Schools which do not meet all standards should be supported to do so. In the majority of cases, the expectation should be that their oversight body will provide or source that support.

“In a small number of cases, where there are concerns as to whether the relevant oversight body can provide the necessary support, structural intervention may be appropriate, including potentially requiring the school to join a trust or move to a different trust. Such intervention should always be done with, rather than to, the school community.

“Who decides whether or not a school which does not meet all the standards has the capacity to improve with the support currently at its disposal is crucial. This should not, in our view, be the role of the inspectorate. Ofsted’s role should simply be to assess whether or not a school meets the statutory standards it is tasked with evaluating.”

Julie McCulloch, ASCL’s director of policy, said: “There is widespread consensus on the need to move away from graded inspection judgements, and much warmth towards an approach based on report cards. However, as with any major policy change, the way in which this is implemented is crucial. The last thing we need is the replacement of one flawed system with another flawed system.

“This paper sets out ASCL’s current thinking and represents an invitation to others to contribute to our on-going work in this area. It is imperative that the profession and the new government work together to develop a strong, collaborative and more humane approach to school inspections.”

• ASCL: An accountability model based on school report cards: an ASCL discussion paper, 2024: www.ascl.org.uk/ASCL/media/ASCL/Our%20view/Campaigns/An-accountability-model-based-on-school-report-cards.pdf