Ofsted’s new approach to inspection has climbed to the top of many school leaders’ agendas, even above funding in some cases. Our recent report highlights schools’ concerns in a meaningful way (NAHT, 2020). Members said that:
- The new framework tries to do too much; inspectors cannot hope to fulfil its demands. Too often judgements are formed on a scant evidence-base.
- Ofsted has adopted a secondary lens through which to judge the primary curriculum, which is proving to be deeply problematic.
- The curriculum methodology is driving new workload and demanding a model of curriculum management that schools do not have the capacity or resource to implement.
We welcomed the overarching vision of the new framework to reduce inspectors’ focus on pupil performance data and outcomes to take greater account of the breadth and balance of a school’s curriculum. However, we raised concerns about the way Ofsted intended to focus on curriculum design and delivery, through its new quality of education judgement. We raised specific concerns about the impact of Ofsted’s secondary-based methodology on primary schools.
As an example, the inspectorate’s approach to the sequencing and retention of knowledge does not reflect current practice. Instead of inspecting and evaluating the work of schools, the inspectorate is driving compliance by requiring schools to accept the approach set out in its framework. The NAHT believes this approach exceeds Ofsted’s remit.
School leaders report this is driving huge workload pressures, as schools feel compelled to generate new curriculum plans that map the sequencing of knowledge in order to evidence so-called curriculum “intent, implementation and impact”.
The evaluation criteria fail to take account of the fundamental structural difference between the phases. In primary schools, subject areas are typically coordinated by class teachers rather than being led by qualified curriculum specialists, as is usual in secondary schools, where subject leadership is supported with management time, a teaching and learning responsibility, and overseen by a school leader with responsibility for a school’s curriculum offer.
By contrast, most primary schools are unable to provide management time or additional payment to subject co-ordinators.
While many classroom teachers are willing to co-ordinate the work of a subject, they do not have the capacity, training or time to lead it. Furthermore, in some circumstances, a teaching assistant with appropriate experience might be asked to co-ordinate a particular curriculum area.
The demands of inspectors made under the new framework effectively impose new curriculum management requirements on primary schools which they have insufficient resource and capacity to deliver.
School leaders report serious concerns that so-called “deep dives” are producing judgements based on very limited evidence, particularly in foundation subjects. A common complaint is that judgements are snapshot impressions based on a single part lesson observation, a high-stakes discussion with a classroom teacher who co-ordinates a subject, a cursory review of pupils’ books, and a handful of questions put to a very small and unrepresentative number of pupils (see also Headteacher Update, 2020).
Our members’ feedback suggests that Ofsted’s approach does not address the widely recognised negative impacts of high-stakes inspection and risks driving new and unnecessary workload for teachers and leaders.
We represent more than 30,000 school leaders. At the end of the autumn term, 1,360 schools had been inspected under the new framework – the majority led by NAHT members. We have discussed the findings of this report with Ofsted. It is clear that our views differ on how well the framework has performed so far.
Regardless, it is not in the interests of pupils that teachers and school leaders should be subjected to increased and unnecessary workload associated with inspection. Nor is it desirable that the high stakes of inspection should be reinforced, as we know this drives good people from the profession.
Ofsted has already responded with some alterations. Following helpful discussions, the chief inspector has clarified that inspectors should avoid conducting deep-dives in subjects which are led by the same member of staff.
They should also make sure that they welcome any senior leader who wishes to support subject leaders in curriculum discussions. The clarification also says that inspectors should be flexible and avoid causing undue disruption to the work of a school, including making sure that they conclude their work in a school by 6pm.
Ofsted has also reaffirmed that inspection does not scrutinise or judge individual teachers or subject leaders. These are welcome steps forward. Nevertheless, it is both possible and necessary to go further.
The NAHT has launched an on-going survey which we are asking every member whose school is or has been inspected since September 2019 to complete. This will give us a more detailed understanding of the experience of schools and will provide a wider evidence-base for our continued discussions with the secretary of state and the chief inspector.
- Paul Whiteman is general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers.
Further information
- Headteacher Update: Concern over Ofsted’s deep dive expectations, January 2020: http://bit.ly/2vVfsHb
- NAHT: A change for the better? Ofsted’s new inspection framework, February 2020: http://bit.ly/32fqDqD
- NAHT: Ofsted inspection survey (NAHT members only):http://bit.ly/3bYimvm