Can Ofsted deliver what it promises? A test case

Colin Richards, a former senior Her Majesty's Inspector offers some close analysis of amendments to Ofsted's inspection framework.

I have had problems accessing details of the modifications to the inspection framework that Ofsted will introduce in September. My computer, perhaps with help from AI, messaged that “There are problems with this content”. How right it proved to be.

Those modifications included an updated section on gathering evidence about achievement across the curriculum. Part of it reads:

“From September, inspectors will check that pupils ‘make progress from their starting points, in that they know more, remember more and can do more; they learn what is intended, and develop broad and deep subject knowledge across the curriculum’.

But can Ofsted deliver what it promises?  I am using this as a test case. I could have chosen many similar statements for analysis and critique.

At first glance the paragraph seems unexceptional. It’s written in typical Ofsted speak; it contains the usual key words or phrases such as “progress”, “broad and deep”. “remember more”, “subject knowledge across the curriculum”; it sounds challenging but realisable. But is it?

Close examination of the content of the paragraph raises serious questions about its practicality. The context is a typical two-day inspection to collect and evaluate evidence on seven or more areas of a school’s work. The paragraph reflects a very small fraction of what will be required to provide an overall assessment of the school’s quality and standards.

“Inspectors will check that pupils…” All pupils? Most pupils? Some pupils? Only those who have “barriers to their learning”? It is not clear. It cannot mean every single pupil, can it? So what proportion of pupils does it refer to, and is that proportion the same in every school? We are not told.

“from their starting points” How do inspectors, who don’t know the pupils personally, know from where they “started”? What constitutes the starting point? This assumes that records and /or data exist for that “starting point” and for subsequent points for all those whose work is examined and discussed during the inspection. It assumes too that such records are accurate. But how would inspectors know?

“they know more, remember more and can do more”. How can inspectors know the pupils are knowing more and remembering more without knowing in detail what they were like in the past? They could, of course, talk to the pupils about their learning, but for how long and to what depth during a hurried two-day inspection? No one, whether primary-aged child or school inspector, can possibly be expected to have total, or even good recall of what they have experienced a week, a month or a year ago. The evidence base for “know more” is highly problematic.

“they learn what is intended” To judge this, inspectors collectively need to be au fait with what the school is providing in every area of the curriculum currently and in the past and with pupils’ responses to that curriculum. This is an impossibility made even more impossible by the time-limited nature of school inspection

“develop broad and deep subject knowledge across the curriculum”. To assess this, inspectors need to have developed “broad and deep knowledge” of pupils’ “broad and deep knowledge,” but how is this feasible given the limited time and limited evidence available? And what constitutes “depth” and “breadth”? Is it possible to have both or does there have to be a trade-off which Ofsted doesn’t recognise? 

In response to criticisms such as these, Ofsted may claim that my critique makes too literal interpretation of the words in these amendments to its current framework. But how else should its words be taken?

This test case of mine demonstrates that Ofsted promises much more than it can possibly deliver - a conclusion that will be reinforced later this month with the publication of What Heads Really Think About Ofsted: Urgent improvement needed written by former senior HMI and academics.