When we created the Alternative Big Listen and the Alternative Big Consultation - surveys launched by former senior inspectors to ask people for their views on the future of Ofsted - we did so because we were concerned about the transparency of Ofsted’s own surveys.

It now seems we were right to be worried, as Ofsted has decided not to publish detailed results of its recent consultation on the new framework.

In our view, this decision throws into question Ofsted’s stated ambition to “embed transparency” through all of its work, and shows a lack of respect to those who responded to its surveys.

This is particularly problematic given that Ofsted is attempting to extract itself from a serious crisis of confidence following the publication of the coroner’s report into Ruth Perry’s death, the damning review conducted by Dame Christine Gilbert and the report conducted by the Commons Education Select Committee, which specifically highlighted the need for the inspectorate to “rebuild trust”.

Our surveys focused on the same questions as Ofsted’s and were conducted around the same time, but gave respondents the opportunity to judge whether they felt proposals were fit for purpose. Our consultation also gave respondents a chance to consider what they thought a new inspection framework should look like.

We were delighted to receive over 700 responses drawn from across the education sector, including parents, carers, governors and trustees. We made clear when we published the results that the sample size was limited, but we were confident they would reflect the responses Ofsted would receive. Unlike Ofsted, we published the responses to all questions as well as the anonymised comments from respondents.

A ‘radical shift’ is needed for inspection

So what did our outcomes reveal? Respondents were clear that they wanted a truly radical shift from the past. They hoped Ofsted would retain the rigour, while adopting a more collaborative approach.

In terms of specific proposals, two possible changes received near-universal support. Of the people who responded to the Alternative Big Consultation, 97 per cent supported the proposal that all schools and colleges should have access to a fully independent complaints process, separate from Ofsted. Similarly, 89 per cent of respondents supported annual safeguarding reviews conducted by an agency other than Ofsted.

There was also very considerable support (82 per cent) for a system of peer-group review to promote quality assurance within an agreed national framework, with 75 per cent agreeing that HMI should play a role in moderating such a system.

A number of other alternatives to the current model of periodic high-stakes inspections also received support, with 64 per cent in favour of four-yearly, one- or two-day visits, involving light-touch inspection by HMI, based on schools’ self-evaluation and with brief oral and written feedback provided to teachers, parents and governors.

These proposals do not constitute a fully-fledged, comprehensive inspection model, but they were well-supported. Our data suggests that they are more likely to be acceptable to the teaching profession and to many parents and governors than the proposals currently being adopted by Ofsted.

Ofsted proposals ‘unfit for purpose’

As for Ofsted’s existing proposals, respondents viewed all but three of the 13 reforms as unfit, or largely unfit, for purpose, including the scorecard, which was dismissed by 88 per cent of respondents. Other Ofsted proposals that were judged unfit, or largely unfit, for purpose included:

• The five-point grading scale for reporting inspection findings (dismissed by 90 per cent of respondents).
• The inspection toolkit (dismissed by 85 per cent).
• Identifying schools and settings causing concern (dismissed by 85 per cent).
• The changes to how inspections are carried out (dismissed by 89 per cent).

With such significant dissatisfaction, we believe Ofsted will struggle to successfully implement these existing proposals. What, then, should the inspectorate do now?

If Ofsted is serious about its commitment to transparency, it has no choice but to publish the outcomes of its own consultation in full. All of our findings are published and available for scrutiny on our website. The same should be true for Ofsted’s findings.

An inspectorate needs to take the moral high ground; this is what allows it to have the highest expectations of openness when inspecting schools. By refusing to publish the consultation outcomes, it indicates to those it inspects that openness is not important.

If school leaders were to just tell inspectors what they want to hear, that wouldn’t be considered acceptable. The inspectorate expects truth, rigour and robustness from schools. Schools have every right to expect the same of Ofsted in return.

Professor Colin Richards and Frank Norris MBE are both former senior inspectors

You can now get the UK’s most-trusted source of education news in a mobile app. Get Tes magazine on iOS and on Android