What Ofsted inspectors really think about inclusion

There is no doubt that the question of whether schools are as inclusive as their Ofsted grades suggest is an important one.

Across the sector, there is a growing discussion about whether inspection frameworks are doing enough to capture the experiences of students with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).

Critics argue that inspectors can place too much emphasis on systems and policies, rather than the lived experience and outcomes of children.

The inspection perspective

These concerns absolutely deserve attention, but one perspective is often absent from this debate: that of the inspectors themselves.

I work for the FDA Union and represent hundreds of His Majesty’s Inspectors (HMIs), who lead school inspections across England.

From speaking to our members, one thing is clear: assessing inclusion is rarely straightforward when determining whether a school’s approach is genuinely improving the experiences of vulnerable students - particularly when the barriers faced by students are beyond the school’s control.

In fact, one of the most significant changes introduced through the new inspection framework has been an attempt to move away from simplistic judgements altogether.

From my conversations with HMIs, they tell me that the new framework provides them with a broader toolkit and greater scope for professional decision-making.

Inspections are increasingly shaped by professional dialogue with leaders, allowing inspectors to test leaders’ claims against what they see in classrooms, what pupils say and the wider life of the school.

This broader lens is important because inclusion looks different in different settings. A school serving a community with high levels of deprivation or complex safeguarding challenges may face very different circumstances from a school elsewhere.

Reflecting more realities

Effective inspection demands an understanding of those realities and, importantly, requires that HMIs do not look at SEND provision alone when visiting schools with complex student cohorts.

HMI reflect that one of the strengths of the new framework is the wider focus on vulnerability.

There is a greater emphasis on disadvantaged students, including those eligible for pupil premium funding, alongside an increased focus on children in care and other vulnerable groups whose experiences have not always received sufficient attention.

For example, children in care are now explicitly prioritised during inspection activity. Personal education plans (PEPs) are scrutinised, and inspectors are expected to consider how effectively schools are meeting these students’ needs.

The result is a more holistic view of inclusion - one that takes account of the varied experiences of vulnerable children across the school community.

At the same time, inclusion cannot be assessed solely through outcomes data. Outcomes matter - of course they do - but they rarely tell the whole story.

Inspectors regularly encounter schools serving communities with significant deprivation, high levels of need and complex safeguarding concerns. In these circumstances, attainment and attendance data alone rarely provide the full picture.

Equally, strong headline data does not automatically mean that every child is receiving the support they need.

That is why inspectors consider a range of evidence, including leadership decisions, classroom practice, student experience and school culture, alongside attainment and progress measures.

The separation of achievement from curriculum quality and teaching within the framework is an important example of this shift. It means weaker outcomes no longer automatically influence every other judgement. Schools can receive recognition for strong practice even where improvement remains a work in progress.

Differences in consistency

Consistency remains an important challenge for inspections. While each is led by an HMI, evidence gathering is often supported by wider inspection teams, where levels of experience can vary.

The quality of contextual understanding can also depend on an HMI’s familiarity with particular communities and the challenges they face. And these are the very reasons why we must continue to refine the inspection process, not dismiss it entirely.

The debate around inclusion should not become a choice between outcomes and processes, or a call for scrapping inspections altogether.

Inspections are incredibly important to parents, with our report Beyond the framework revealing that 83 per cent of parents of children aged 18 and under in the UK agree with the principle that school performance should be independently reviewed.

Everyone in education wants the same thing: better experiences and outcomes for all children, including those with SEND and other vulnerable students. HMIs are no different.

The debate should move away from whether inspectors are ticking boxes, and towards how the framework can further evolve into a tool that captures a school’s full picture, incorporating culture, provision, students’ lived experiences and outcomes.

Effective inspections are never about systems or practice in isolation; they involve bringing all aspects together to reach judgements that are genuinely fair and meaningful.

Matt Newman is national officer at FDA Union, which represents His Majesty’s Inspectors (HMIs) for Ofsted