51����

D

espite the Isle of Man being just 30 miles from England at the shortest point, the island’s new form of inspection, which has been made public today, is a world apart from what schools on the mainland experience.

That’s because the island’s new “validation” model requires its 32 primaries and five secondaries to grade themselves, with their judgements checked by an external “validator” - rather than being subject to unannounced, external inspections.

While a model like this won’t replace how schools are inspected in England, the approach may well be of interest to policymakers in Ofsted and the Department for Education as they consider how multi-academy trust (MAT) inspections could be conducted - something that Ofsted outlined its intention to introduce in its Big Listen consultation response.

That said: “We will work with the government on upcoming legislation to allow us to inspect MATs.

“This would help to improve standards across the system. It would also make sure accountability reflects decision-making, separating schools from the trusts in which they sit.”

So, how does the Isle of Man’s new validation model work - and could it really be adopted for trusts?

Free from Ofsted

The first thing to understand is that as a self-governing British Crown Dependency, the Isle of Man has its own government and laws, and jurisdiction for its schools sits with its own Department of Education, Sport and Culture (DESC).

This means it has always been free from the oversight of Ofsted, allowing schools on the island to avoid the “negative impact” of its inspection model, says Graham Kinrade, chief executive officer of the DESC.

“A model of inspection - even the very use of the word - sets the wrong connotation,” he tells Tes.

The island has avoided more formal inspections for years, with a previous form of self-review in place between 2017 and 2020.

This has now evolved into the new model that aims to bring in more oversight, in the form of external validators provided by Etio - formerly Tribal Education Services - and a reduction in paperwork to help ease the burden on the self-review element for schools.

It’s also worth noting that while the island’s model is about self-review and validation rather than inspection, the shadow of Ofsted is not entirely absent, as the four areas of consideration will be familiar to any teacher in England: quality of education, behaviour and attitudes, personal development, and leadership and management.

However, the big difference is that rather than an inspector judging schools on these areas, schools score themselves against each category using three criteria: “highly effective”, “effective” or “a growth priority”.

“We don’t talk about requiring improvement,” Kinrade says. “We don’t talk about failing.”

Of course, schools have to justify these ratings, with documentation required for each category - something Kinrade says is a natural fit: “Any quality school led by a strong leader is running an internal self-improvement cycle anyway.”

Leader input

The creation of this new model has taken place over the past 12 months, during a pilot process that was developed and led by school leaders, as Kinrade wanted to ensure they were part of the changes being proposed.

One member was Anna Jackson, executive headteacher at Peel Clothworkers’ School and Marown, two primaries on the Isle of Man, and she says cutting paperwork was a major part of its input.

“The previous [model] was very paperwork-based - there was a lot of repetition within the sections of the self-evaluation document and so the writing was really quite onerous and repetitive,” she explains.

Another change is that the three criteria - “highly effective”, “effective” or “a growth priority” - are brand new. Kinrade says these descriptors were chosen because the remodel is part of a “reset around culture” and “we have to enable schools to own their own growth and development”.

Nicola Morris, Etio project director, says insights such as this were key to ensuring the new model is supported by schools: “School leaders on the island developed their own framework for self-evaluation,” she says. “If you’re part of the journey of developing something, you’ve got greater buy-in.”

Alongside this, the biggest change is how a school’s self-review is evaluated. Whereas before this was done directly with the Isle of Man government, now external validators oversee the process.

Kinrade says the department wanted to outsource this as doing it internally felt “a little bit like marking your own homework”, adding: “I find it very powerful to have the external view.”

Of course, those validators need the credentials to justify going into a school and overseeing its self-evaluations, with Morris at Etio explaining that they chiefly use people with “educational leadership experience in schools” to do this, including headteachers or school improvement leads.

The validation visit

How these visits are organised is also very different. Firstly, schools book in for their validator visit more than a year ahead, so there are no surprise phone calls.

Then in the weeks leading up to the visit date, the school shares its self-evaluation with a validator for them to peruse.

They then talk with the school and together they decide on a few “validation trails” - specific areas the school would like to focus on during the visit - such as assessment, curriculum or stakeholder engagement.

This visit lasts one or two days depending on the size of the school, and, during this time, they will discuss the judgements the school has given itself, whether they best reflect the evidence and how it can improve any areas.

The aim of this is “leadership CPD”, with Etio referring to these discussions as “coaching” between the validator and the school leaders, whereby they talk through how they can continue to improve.

Kinrade says this coaching model is a key aspect of the new system: “It’s a strong way of challenging and enabling [leaders] to see where they may have missed something or may be able to step up.”

From all this, the validator then writes an information document based on their findings, which is made available to parents and carers, and a “growth summary” for the headteacher, which becomes part of the school improvement plan.

It’s worth noting here that, alongside this system, there is still a mechanism whereby 51���� concerns can trigger a specific “inspection”, whether raised by parents or validators. “That’s a legal lever that I have at any time,” adds Kinrade.

The headteachers’ view

What do leaders on the island think of the model?

Executive headteacher Jackson went through the process for both of her schools in 2024. She says she found it “very rigorous”, with “no stone left unturned”.

But because it didn’t require excessive paperwork, it was less of a burden on her and her team compared with the previous model. “It’s less repetitive and more purposeful,” she adds.

Charlotte Clarke, headteacher of Queen Elizabeth II High School, concurs, describing the process as “encouraging, positive and supportive”.

Clarke was previously a headteacher in Yorkshire, and so has experienced Ofsted inspections. When her Isle of Man school was validated last year, she found the coaching model led to a “safe space for growth...That isn’t something I’d experienced previously in any Ofsted inspection”.

She adds: “I think you would retain lots more people in headship if this model was used wider than the Isle of Man.”

Of course, there will be times when school leaders and validators disagree about whether an area is “highly effective”, “effective” or “a growth priority”. To date, Kinrade says he is confident that the coaching approach means consensus is always reached - but that element will no doubt be interesting to follow as the validations continue.

Is the Isle of Man model for MATs?

Of course, even with wide-ranging reforms at Ofsted, there is no suggestion that it will move to anything like this model for school inspection.

But given that MATs have never been subject to compulsory inspection (currently MATs choose whether to agree to a summary evaluation), there is fertile ground for a new process here. Could that be something akin to the Isle of Man model?

Morris from Etio thinks it could, saying that “it definitely does have scalability”.

However, she points out that the role of validator could not necessarily be done by an Ofsted inspector as they currently stand.

“Unlike a compliance-type model, it’s very much about thinking on your feet to guide the next stage of that validation process,” she explains. “You need people who’ve got coaching expertise but also have a robust understanding of current educational practices.”

‘The right kind of direction’

Even if those individuals could be found, would MATs be receptive to such a process?

Lynsey Holzer, CEO of Active Learning Trust, which runs 19 academies in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, says she has long believed MATs should be inspected.

“I feel very strongly that MATs should have an accountability framework,” she tells Tes, adding that she thinks such a scheme would “have to look and feel quite different to the current [school] inspection framework”.

Instead, she says MATs should be measured on “more than just standards” and against an accountability framework of key performance indicators that include “metrics around [staff] turnover and absence”.

Holzer adds, therefore, that the Isle of Man’s model is “a starting point” and “the right kind of direction for MAT inspections”.

She says: “I do think it would give an indication of whether this was a stable trust, a growing trust or a failing trust.”

Concerns over scale and expertise

However, not everyone is of the same mind, including Rowena Hackwood, CEO of Sheffield-based Astrea Academy Trust.

The trust sector is “already highly scrutinised through school inspections” that “hold all the meaningful outcome measures of performance”, says Hackwood.

She adds that trusts can already choose to receive a MAT summary evaluation, and all are also subject to routine external audits, scrutiny from the DfE and published league tables.

“My concern for a co-inspection model like the Isle of Man pilot is scale and expertise,” Hackwood says, highlighting the difficulty of self-reviewing “our management of a £110 million budget, or our HR data, operational decisions or planning across an estate of 26 schools”.

Claire Heald, CEO of The Cam Academy Trust, which runs 12 schools, is similarly cautious, saying the Isle of Man model risks “a potential blurring of the line between school improvement and inspection and regulation”.

What’s more, she says that in the current Ofsted set-up, inspectors do not necessarily “genuinely understand how MATs work”.

She says that, in theory, it could be done by “drawing on the expertise” of serving MAT leaders to act as validators. She says this would be “reassuring” for the sector and “would also provide hugely valuable CPD for trust leaders”.

An area without precedent

There’s no doubt a long way to go before any MAT inspection system is created within England.

But given that it is an area without precedent, those tasked with creating proposals on how to do this best may well find the Isle of Man model intriguing - and those involved are certainly happy to share more.

“I am excited by it going public,” says Kinrade, adding that he is happy to share his insights with those outside the island. “People coming in, looking and rightly challenging - you learn from that.”

For the latest education news and analysis delivered every weekday morning, sign up for the Tes Daily newsletter