Ofsted inspection proposals conjure up a spectre of the past

Michael Tidd wonders why no one at Ofsted recalled the headaches caused by the assessment levels system when drawing up new inspection framework proposals
4th February 2025, 11:37am
Ofsted inspection

Share

Ofsted inspection proposals conjure up a spectre of the past

https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/ofsted-inspection-proposals-conjure-up-spectre-of-past

Imagine hearing repeated complaints that the biggest flaw in inspections is the reliance on single-word judgments, and concluding that the best solution is to double the number of them.

It turns out that during the Big Listen, Ofsted didn’t quite listen big enough, and they’ve ended up amplifying the same old problems.

What’s worse, is that this is a journey we’ve seen so clearly before: we know that trying to simplify assessment down to simplistic judgements is unhelpful and have spent the past decade trying to undo the harm caused by national curriculum levels.

At their worst, levels caused genuine harm to the assessment of learning.

Subdivisions and confusion

First came the subdivision into more categories, and then the horror that was Assessing Pupils’ Progress (APP) - the dreadful grids that tried to break subjects down into strands, which could be individually tallied to reach an overall judgement.

You could be a level 3 in calculating, but level 4 in algebra - and we could convince ourselves that it was nuanced and insightful. But we know it was nonsense, and we’ve moved on. Except for those at Ofsted.

Now, not content with four sub-judgements we need eight or, nine...or maybe 11. And once again we’ll see exactly the same issues.

When the Department for Education’s assessment commission set out the problems with levels in 2015, they were clear: levels “required aggregating a wide variety of data into a single number”, they said, noting that it meant “levels became viewed as thresholds” and that this meant: “In reality, the difference between […] either side of a boundary might have been very slight”.

Perhaps most frustratingly it reported, “the level descriptors were open to interpretation”.

Barriers to consistency

One of Ofsted’s longest-standing challenges has been the variation in the quality of inspection teams.

Not necessarily through any flaws in the individuals involved - although, of course, there are plenty of cases of that, too - but because the whole system inevitably relies on subjective judgements, made hastily against an unclear framework.


More on Ofsted’s new inspections:


When it came to national curriculum levels, we had descriptors that claimed that writing which was “varied and interesting” was notably better than that which was “lively and thoughtful”.

All very well in the mind of the original writer, I’m sure, but meaningless as an attempt to differentiate between writers.

And so it is with the new proposed “toolkits” - a 30-page document in the case of schools, which sets out a whole host of APP-style grids to guide inspectors’ judgements. The Ofsted consultation describes them as being “clear and accessible” so that everyone can “understand them consistently”.

Let’s put that to the test. Which is better?

  • “Teachers have the expertise and knowledge to make well-judged adaptations to overcome barriers to learning”

Or

  • “Appropriate and well-judged adaptations help pupils to overcome the most significant barriers to learning”

You might presume the first is better than the second, since the latter refers only to the most significant barriers. But you’d be wrong. In Ofsted’s eyes, “appropriate and well-judged” is better than just “well-judged” use of expertise.

Good luck to different inspection teams trying to apply those descriptors equally.

Even within single statements, the nonsense is clear. How does one judge whether a school is “secure” when it comes to the “progress through the curriculum” sub-category?

The first statement explains it all: “Leaders make sure that pupils are making secure progress across the curriculum.” Is it just me, or are we all going round in circles?

And herein lies the problem. We convinced ourselves for years that we could add more complexity to simplistic assessment levels and have spent the last ten years undoing the damage. How long will it take us to undo the harm caused by these proposals?

Michael Tidd is headteacher at East Preston Junior School in West Sussex

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

Want to keep reading for free?

Register with Tes and you can read two free articles every month plus you'll have access to our range of award-winning newsletters.

Register with Tes and you can read two free articles every month plus you'll have access to our range of award-winning newsletters.

Keep reading with our special offer!

You’ve reached your limit of free articles this month.

/per month for 12 months
  • Unlimited access to all Tes magazine content
  • Save your favourite articles and gift them to your colleagues
  • Exclusive subscriber-only stories
  • Over 200,000 archived articles
  • Unlimited access to all Tes magazine content
  • Save your favourite articles and gift them to your colleagues
  • Exclusive subscriber-only stories
  • Over 200,000 archived articles

topics in this article

Recent
Most read
Most shared