Ofsted’s new ‘report card’ proposals have caused some controversy.
The removal of single-word judgements was received positively - but its proposed replacement has seemingly put the accountability system on steroids, with multi-tiered and ill-defined judgements across up to nine different categories from achievement to personal development and well-being.
It will be interesting to see whether the proposal survives the current consultation, but stranger things have happened.
Envious looks?
Some of my colleagues in the state sector could perhaps be forgiven for looking enviously at the new (ISI) framework for independent schools introduced last year and which has swept away the previous judgements of “excellent”, “good”, “sound” or “unsatisfactory”.
Instead, schools are assessed against five standards: leadership, management and governance; education, training and recreation; pupils’ physical and mental health and emotional wellbeing; their social and economic wellbeing and contribution to society, and 51.
Inspectors report whether standards are “met” or “not met”. There is no overall judgement, although inspectors are free to indicate “significant strengths” where they are discovered.
However, no inspection system will be perfect. The new ISI regime is still in its early stages, but it would be wrong to think it is without its problems.
Descriptors ‘like tripwires’
Possibly the most serious flaw occurs when a standard is “not met”. Failure can be the result of some technical or administrative mistake on the part of the school, which can often be swiftly rectified.
Unfortunately, the interdependence of the standards can lead to a case of double or even triple jeopardy with multiple failings traced back to the same root cause. Strictly speaking, the judgement of multiple failings is accurate as more than one standard will not be met.
But if the objective of inspection is to provide parents with a fair picture of the school, it must be open to question whether the report does this.
One headteacher described the situation to me as like finding oneself in a minefield, where one mistake triggers numerous failings across a range of standards.
The “met”/“not met” descriptors have been likened to tripwires, where the binary nature of the judgement is high stakes and consequently very stressful for school leaders.
Visas and financial worries
This is particularly the case for colleagues leading boarding schools, where the consequences of an unmet standard can potentially be catastrophic.
Schools failing to meet standards automatically suffer the loss of their Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) status - the ability to accept a student for a course of study in the UK.
Without visas, overseas students cannot take up the offer of a place, and for schools with large numbers of overseas boarders, this can threaten a severe impact on a school’s finances.
It also disproportionately affects schools inspected later in the school year, as these schools have less time to apply for and receive a progress monitoring inspection to rectify the situation.
‘Undoubted strengths’ of ISI
While some complain that the new inspection reports are duller and have lost some of their colour and variety, there are still undoubted strengths of the ISI regime.
The principle of peer review is still embedded in the system and colleagues continue to benefit from the opportunities for professional development that this provides.
As standards in schools rise, it is arguably less necessary for inspection to serve as a vehicle for school improvement. Most schools in the independent sector have a commercial as well as an educational incentive to improve and that sets the prevailing culture.
That said, inspection remains an important and necessary ingredient of the school system and if we have not yet found the perfect framework, that will not stop us from trying.
Simon Hyde is general secretary of The Heads’ Conference (HMC)
For the latest education news and analysis delivered every weekday morning, sign up for the Tes Daily newsletter
