Ofsted has sought feedback on its revised inspection framework. In order to inform our response to the consultation, we held a series of roundtables in March, focusing on the areas of inclusion, curriculum and attendance. These roundtables are only part of the work informing our final response and are complemented by an online survey as well as reviews of existing literature and data.
Our online roundtables were attended by Chartered College Fellows and members from a range of schools and settings, representing Early Years to Initial Teacher Training, mainstream schools to specialist provision, as well as some practitioners who are also Ofsted inspectors and Fellows who are His Majesty’s Inspectors (HMIs).
Each discussion has fed into our response to the current Ofsted and Department for Education (DfE) consultations around the inspection framework and measures proposed. It should be noted that the views summarised here are those of colleagues attending the roundtables and reflect their experiences with and opinions of the inspection system. They are not necessarily representative of the entire teaching profession or the Chartered College of Teaching as an organisation but they are important to share as part of the evidence informing discussions going forward.
In a previous blog post, we shared headline findings from our consultation. In this series, we share more detailed insights on some of the focus areas, which have also been shared with Ofsted.
The first blog summarises a discussion on the focus area of Inclusion.
All involved agreed that making inclusion a central thread was a positive step. Yet, many were also concerned about potential unintended consequences of the proposal.
The discussion focused on three key areas:
- The definition of inclusion
- The suitability of the framework across all settings
- The specific phrasing of the proposals.
The definition of inclusion
We began the session by discussing the proposed definition of inclusion and whether it was suitable for the contexts participants represented. Concerns were raised over the length of the definition and its all-encompassing nature, with comments made around the lack of precision of some of the terms. For example, terms such as ‘community’ and ‘high-expectations’ could be interpreted differently by each inspector and each school. One participant commented:
“What is community in this context and how on earth could a school show that in a two-day inspection with an inspector who does not know that area?”
It was felt that the proposed definition needed a glossary of its own.
Concerns over how the focus on inclusion could be interpreted in schools were also raised.
For example, one colleague shared that their trust had already started to develop a ‘checklist for inclusion’ to ensure that each school had evidence to present to inspectors instead of focusing on the development of an inclusive school vision and ethos, which participants felt should be driving school development. It was agreed that approaches like this one may become common practice as people move to evidencing inclusion for inspection instead of focusing on the development of inclusive practices. It was also discussed that it is not clear how the proposal was going to address capacity issues relating to a growing number of students with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) across different schools and settings and how this may affect inclusion.
Colleagues from all settings shared concerns over the lack of pupil-centred inclusion and called for a focus on students’ feelings of belonging. There were also concerns raised around the focus on SEND over and above other protected characteristics.
Will the framework proposals work in all school types?
Most participants welcomed the proposed approach of applying the same inspection criteria across all settings. It was acknowledged that inspectors bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to inspections as they visit a large variety of schools and settings across the country. This external viewpoint and wider system knowledge could be of real value to schools in developing their plans for school improvement. It was discussed that if the framework was used appropriately, it could become a useful tool for school improvement rather than a metric of current effectiveness.
However, some felt that unless inspectors had lived experience of similar settings and communities to those they were inspecting, their biases could influence their judgment. They therefore felt that it was important to match inspectors to the settings they are inspecting. One colleague shared a concrete example of why doing so was important, recalling a recent inspection in which an inspector sought feedback from nonverbal students without any understanding of, or accommodation for their special educational needs. Not being able to report on student voice as a result was noted negatively in the final inspection report.
Participants generally did not feel that the scorecard addressed any of these issues but potentially exacerbated them due to a lack of clear distinction between the different categories on the report cards, which may increase inconsistencies across inspections.
In conclusion, one participant summarised the thoughts of those involved in the discussions: “Surely we can do better than these proposals if we truly value inclusion and want to work with the sector to improve all schools for all children, one where teachers are valued and treated like professionals”.
The wider school context
Participants welcomed that the new inspection approach set out to take schools’ contexts into consideration. But they also wondered how inspectors would do this adequately within the short timeframe of an inspection, given the wide range of complex needs and issues that need to be considered.
The inspection of inclusion sits within a system filled with barriers for schools, from the recruitment of suitably qualified staff, failing wider service level support such as speech and language, and a SEND funding crisis. Some participants felt that expectations set out in the framework would put unrealistic pressure on schools that are having to deliver much more on much less.
The use of pupil premium funding was also discussed. Participants shared that in past inspections, they experienced a lack of acknowledgement from inspectors as to the complex causes and effects of socio-economic disadvantage and unrealistic expectations as to what could be achieved with a relatively small pot of money. Schools shared the impact of general annual grant (GAG) funding in their multi-academy trusts (MATs) and that the pupil premium pot was often so small and ring-fenced for inclusion in extracurricular activities that the impact on wider inclusion work was limited.
Strength and weaknesses of current terminology
Ambiguity of terms
Participants continually raised the issue that some of the wording in the toolkit left a lot of room for interpretation. Terms such as ‘extremely well’, ‘rich data’ and the overuse of ‘well’ were all discussed.
It was felt that a much clearer framework was needed, with potential steps for improvement outlined, and clarity over what was considered to be good practice. This should be supported by case studies and concrete examples.
Outcome-driven approach
Participants felt that the focus on ‘high expectations’ and ‘aspirations’ could have a positive impact on inclusion. However, concerns were raised about the ability to truly capture these high expectations and aspirations in a short inspection, and the risk of relying on outcome data instead. This concern was echoed in all discussions. Participants felt that a focus on achievement may continue to penalise what they considered to be truly inclusive schools, i.e. those providing a stage-, not age-focused education.
It was also discussed that the focus on achievement may give little incentive to schools that currently have low SEND numbers in their results. One colleague from a school that served an affluent community thought that their school would benefit from this system as their parents seek SEND diagnoses privately, but that they also have low need and so the children, in turn, get good academic results. They thought that their school would likely be graded well but that this was not necessarily down to the school’s provision but rather due to parental support and their knowledge of the system. This was discussed in comparison to a school that had high SEND numbers and served a community with low socio-economic background, with parents who were not able to support the school in getting a diagnosis for their child and their results remaining below the national average.
In summary, participants called for the following:
- Clarify terminology within scorecards and the framework to ensure clarity and consistent inspection
- Focus inspections on improvement and partnership
- Match inspectors to schools to ensure best possible alignment and understanding
- Clarify how schools’ contexts will be accounted for in inspections
- Do not hold schools accountable for failings of the wider system
- Work with schools and practitioners to develop a collection of case studies exemplifying good inclusive practice
- Ensure that inclusion focuses on the lived experiences of the young people that each school serves
- Consider the inclusion of other protected characteristics as part of the inclusion definition
- Make inclusion a central focus, like safeguarding, to avoid a ‘tick list’ approach to inclusion, and ensure it is a central driving force for school improvement.
