An Alternative Interim Report on School Inspection

Former Her Majesty’s Inspectors Colin Richards and Frank Norris, who have helped spearhead and promote alternative approaches to Ofsted inspection, analyse the inspectorate’s independent report, which sought to set out providers’ views on its recently-reformed system.

 

When responding to Ofsted’s proposed changes made in relation to its Big Listen, those of us involved in the Alternative Big Consultation focused on gathering responses from schools, not from early years settings, FE or skills providers. This was partly because of limitations in our capacity but mainly because we felt that the new framework would have most impact on schools.  The findings were damning. Ofsted and its proposed new framework were not considered fit for purpose by a large majority of school respondents.

Ofsted did make some changes to its original proposals, but these were relatively minor and did not fully or even adequately address the concerns expressed. It launched its new education inspection framework in September 2025 and commissioned research to evaluate the implementation of the framework from IFF Research, which has just published an interim report based on 253 responses from schools, 384 from early years settings, and 57 from FE and skills providers. Its report does not include the number of primary-school as opposed to secondary-school responses – a significant, unexplained omission. It also doesn’t draw on evidence provided by schools in their post inspection survey submissions.

From its poorly expressed, and often tortuous, findings it is possible to provide a partial alternative interim report focussed on schools only, hence the title of this article. It is partial because only rarely in the report are schools’ responses reported separately from those of other providers. As seen from the percentages below, this partial report presents a noticeably different view from the encouraging perspective Ofsted’s leadership spun in their press release.

A total of 73 per cent of schools, undifferentiated between primary and secondary phases, failed to complete IFF’s online survey- the major source of its reported findings. Why was that? Were there any phase differences?

There is no specific data on schools’ overall experience of inspection. Why that significant omission? Is it substantially different from that of other providers?  It could be, given other evidence from schools, as summarised in the rest of this short article.

Schools’ views on whether inspection teams worked collaboratively with them are not reported on. Are they significantly different from those in early years settings, FE and skills providers?  We aren’t told.

There is, however, some specific schools data which raise significant questions about the effects of the framework:

50% of schools did not believe that the workload was manageable - a finding understandably seized on by the professional associations.

48% of schools reported that their staff’s mental well-being had been negatively affected a fair amount or a lot- headline news in the national press. Significantly IFF do not report whether school leaders’ well-being had been affected. Was that part of the on-line survey? If not, why not?

45% of schools said that the actions taken by Ofsted had not reduced stress and anxiety “a fair amount or a lot” despite Ofsted’s protestations that its changes have been designed with that in mind.

53% of secondary schools did not agree that their inspection was tailored to their context; no percentage is given for primary schools. Why not?

31% of schools said the report card did not give an accurate report of their provision, but with no breakdown between primary and secondary schools. Probably due to a very small number of special schools responding, there is also no mention of their responses to the new framework.

Looked at impartially, these percentages from schools raise very serious consequences for Ofsted not acknowledged in its public comment on the research it has commissioned.  This Alternative Interim Report that focuses on school-specific findings strongly suggests that Ofsted’s claims for its supposedly “renewed” inspection framework are problematic at best and hollow at worst.

The current position of Sir Martyn Oliver as chief inspector is in jeopardy as a result of the deep disquiet over the effectiveness of Ofsted and its effects on staff well-being, as vividly shown in this alternative interim report and in the recent statements by three of the leading professional associations This began before his tenure- epitomised by the lack of empathy shown by his predecessor, Amanda Spielman, at the sad death of Ruth Perry.  He inherited an almost impossibly difficult task after Spielman’s regime, which had alienated so many with its insensitivity and its deafness to criticism.

What Ofsted needs is far greater imagination and greater awareness of the acute distress created by an ever more complex and demanding inspection system. Through two “consultations” Martin Oliver has tried to listen to, but failed to hear, what the sector is saying and feeling. What is required is radical change; instead he only offers slow incremental changes. His unimaginative, if well-meant, managerial changes have not been anywhere near enough to allay the disquiet and alienation felt by so many who want the inspection system to be much safer, fairer and more proportionate. A chief inspector needs the imagination, leadership and drive to create a reconstituted inspection system fit for purpose and respectful of the well-being of those inspected and inspecting. That person is not Martyn Oliver.