As a headteacher, I once considered purchasing a computer package that generated children's annual reports.
As a staff, we trialed it and wrote a few reports. Then, I removed the names from the reports and asked the staff to identify our children.
With the names removed it was impossible because the system only produced stock phrases that were generic, rather than personal insights about each child.
Although it took longer, we decided to stick with writing personal reports because we felt each child deserved that.
This came to mind when I was reading about the changes that Ofsted has announced since the beginning of this academic year, which it is now slowly implementing.
The inspectorate has been forced to make changes, of course, following the outpouring of anger over its inspection regime sparked by the death of headteacher Ruth Perry in 2022.
Although the changes being introduced by Ofsted are a step towards improving the inspection system, it is regrettable that they remain within a framework that yields single-word judgements and is heavily compliance-focused.
As of yet, Ofsted has refused to be moved on its use of single-word judgements despite significant pressure from education unions and others.
We need an inspection system that is intuitive, listens to school leaders and, more importantly, understands that although we have only one inspection handbook, we have more than 24,000 schools in England that are all unique and all serve different communities.
Removing excessive compliance measures and single-word judgements would enable inspection reports to demonstrate that the inspector really understood the job schools do. That would undoubtedly go a long way toward the process of an inspection feeling more of a partnership.
While I do not think we can ever remove the nerves of inspection (although more notice would help), we can make the process feel fairer and more individual by taking away the excessive bureaucracy that has created a culture of doing our work for “Ofsteds” rather than for the sake of children.
I was appointed headteacher at Delamere CE Primary in Cheshire in January 2005 – my first headship.
In 2006, the school received a “satisfactory” Ofsted rating, leading to a decline in pupil numbers and eventual its listing for closure. The scheduled closure date was set for September 2009.
However, in 2006, I was fortunate to meet Sir John Timpson, who became my chair of governors. Sir John could not believe the sheer volume of paperwork that existed in the school and how it stifled creativity and the ability to lead and manage.
He encouraged me to do less paperwork and get on with the job of making the school a centre of excellence. Over the next three years, we started doing the work that we felt mattered – child-focused rather than compliance-led.
In March 2009, while still listed for closure, Delamere CE Primary School received an “outstanding” grade. The report and grade transformed the school’s future. The plan for closure was scrapped and, almost 15 years later, under the leadership of headteacher Julie Clayton, in November 2023, the school was reinspected and received another outstanding grade.
A lot has changed during that time but have all these changes made the difference to the education system they were designed to?
The 2009 inspection was part of a pilot programme at Ofsted meaning that we knew the term when the visit was due to take place. All the pilot schools were invited to the Ofsted head office in Manchester where the inspectors explained the purpose of inspection, framework changes, and how the 30 numerical grade statements would be marked to give an overall judgement on the school. It all seemed more “done with” than “done to”.
We received mostly grade 1s, a grade 2 for community cohesion (can anybody remember what that grade judgement actually said?), a grade 2 for pupil attainment, and a mixture of 1s and 2s against the four foundation stage statements.
The mix of gradings gave a fair assessment of the school's strengths and weaknesses. This was the first inspection framework where safeguarding and particularly the Single Central Register was inspected.
The report ran to some 12 pages and the comments were a pleasure to read. The back page of the report also stated the percentage of schools in each single word band. At that time, 15% of schools were “outstanding”, 49% were “good”, 32% were “satisfactory”, and 5% were “inadequate”.
Going further back, Ofsted was originally established in 1992 to replace the system of local inspections and occasional HMI visits with the aim of bringing consistency to the school system.
In 1997, as a recently qualified teacher, I remember my first inspection being a nerve-wracking affair where inspectors came for a week, including a lay inspector as part of the team, and spent all their time in classrooms understanding the learning taking place.
That 1997 report gave a thorough picture of what school life was like, including parent views, strengths, areas for developments, and some subtle nuances that would also add to school improvement.
Words were used well and there was no necessity for single-word judgements.
However, the cost of week-long inspections for every school was probably astronomical, so the number of inspectors and inspection days began to be reduced. This is probably where the system began to go wrong – with successive inspection frameworks streamlining the costs of school inspection at the expense of school improvement.
Across our trust, we have had six inspections in just over a year now. In each inspection, the inspector will start with a review of the school’s website to ensure various levels of compliance and statutory documentation are met. This will be followed by a scripted telephone conversation where heads and selected others answer a series of compliance questions about the school.
On the first day of inspection there is a review of the school’s approach to reading, followed by “deep dives” into the curriculum. Day two, the inspection teams focus on “evidence-gathering” to meet the framework demands.
Schools have always been subject to inspection and have consistently faced scrutiny. In the system we operate in, this is vital to ensure our children receive the best possible education.
However, in an election year, whatever party wins, we have a genuine opportunity to make significant changes that will enable our system to flourish.
Ditch the single-word judgements, give more notice, reduce compliance and let’s make inspection more about how we work in partnership to improve our schools for the children they serve.
- Stephen Docking is CEO of the North West Academies Trust, a multi-academy trust of 11 schools situated across Cheshire and Shropshire. He is also a former National Leader of Education and Ofsted-registered inspector with CFBT.