Ofsted’s role as enforcer of academisation shows we need to completely rethink inspection and accountability in England.
Ofsted’s role as a tool of Government policy and source of unproductive pressure on schools is due to be strengthened from September this year as the Government moves to make all schools with two or more consecutive ‘requires improvement’ (RI) judgements “eligible for intervention”. Schools in this position, that were last inspected after 1 May 2021, face the prospect of being forced to join a multi-academy trust (MAT), based on decisions made by civil servants.
The policy, which was announced in the Government’s White Paper, and has already been the subject of a consultation, forms part a suite of policies linked to the Government’s aim of getting all schools into MATs by 2030.
Under the proposals, Department for Education (DfE) civil servants are expected to issue academy orders for non-academy schools. There is a similar presumption that standalone academies would be forced to join a MAT, while academies already part of a MAT are likely to be shifted into a new one. The new powers will initially be focused on the 55 Education Improvement Areas (EIAs) – identified by the Government as “cold spots of the country where school outcomes are the weakest”. After three years the process will be expanded across the whole of England.
The National Education Union (NEU) is strongly opposed to these measures which will only exacerbate the negative impacts of the Ofsted regime on schools, the workforce and ultimately pupils, creating perverse incentives that distract from teaching and learning. Being judged as ‘requires improvement’ is already something that schools fear, but the new proposals will transform RI into a “cliff-edge” judgement and further increase the pressure of inspection by linking it to imposed structural change.
The measure is likely to impact on more schools than just those with two consecutive RI judgements, of which there are few. Schools whose most recent inspection resulted in RI will face increased pressure as the judgement from their next inspection could result in wholesale structural change.
This policy is part of a trend which provides further evidence that that the inspectorate’s role is not to support schools, but to produce labels which the Government can use for its increasingly authoritarian interventions around academisation.
The history of the RI judgement shows this clearly. Until 2012, there was no such grade; schools that were deemed neither ‘good’ nor ‘inadequate’ would receive a ‘satisfactory’ grade.
The move to the label ‘requires improvement’ was justified by Ofsted’s Chief Inspector at the time Michael Wilshaw, with the unfair and out of touch idea that schools with consecutive ‘satisfactory’ grades were ‘coasting’.
Along with the change in terminology came measures that increased pressure on schools. An RI school would receive monitoring and re-inspection withing two rather than three years. The new Ofsted framework stated that “if a school is judged as ‘requires improvement’ at two consecutive inspections and is still not ‘good’ at a third inspection, it is likely to be deemed ‘inadequate’ and to require special measures”, thereby shifting the goalposts to prop up current government ideology, rather than supporting schools and education staff to improve teaching and learning
As many warned at the time, the shift in approach would create a new category of schools which the government could then force into academy status, and these fears are now being realised.
The measures being introduced in September are not based on evidence but on dogma. The Government’s contention that joining a MAT boosts tests results or Ofsted outcomes has been thoroughly debunked. NEU analysis of Ofsted ratings of local authority-maintained schools and those in MATs suggests that schools who join MATs are less likely to improve their Ofsted rating and are, in fact, more likely to see a regression in their next Ofsted assessment.
The real sticking point here is the fact that the Ofsted grades themselves are not worth the paper they are printed on, given that they do not accurately measure the progress of schools – MAT or LA maintained. Government claims that “Ofsted’s inspections offer a rounded, robust assessment of a school’s performance and a clear view of its strengths and weaknesses.” Anyone with experience of Ofsted’s inspection regime would know that this is not the case but analysis of Ofsted judgements shows that the inspectorate discriminate against schools in deprived areas – awarding 'outstanding' grades to four times more secondary schools with better-off pupils than schools with students who are worse off. Research has also shown that even when schools in deprived areas are making excellent value-added progress, they are still more likely to be given poor Ofsted judgements.
Sure enough, when you look at the schools which currently have two consecutive RI judgements, more than half (58 per cent) are in the bottom two quintiles of the “income deprivation affecting children index” (IDACI). This means that schools with more deprived intakes will be disproportionately impacted by the Government’s push to force poorer schools into MATs.
Ofsted judgements do not reflect the work going on in schools and colleges, but they are an excellent way to find out where schools with high intakes of poorer pupils are located. After 30 years of Ofsted, it is time for a new system of inspection that is supportive, effective, and fair – one which doesn’t simply label those in deprived areas as failing before forcing massively disruptive structural change on them.
You can find out more about the Replace Ofsted: Let teacher teach campaign, as well as alternative systems we can learn from, here.
Kevin Courtney, Joint General Secretary of the National Education Union,
