Ofsted states that it exists to raise standards in education and therefore improve the lives of children and learners - particularly the most disadvantaged. How well will its recent changes, including the new scorecard and toolkits, help to fulfil its mission?
The new approach does have some positives. It does a much better job of recognising socioeconomic diversity within the term “inclusion”.
Far too often, the word has been used as a proxy for special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) when it should cover a much wider set of issues. Inclusion is about ensuring all children can thrive at school, especially those who face various additional challenges.
This embedded focus on children from low-income backgrounds is, therefore, very welcome. Similarly, weaving inclusion through every measure as well as a standalone evaluation area is a step in the right direction.
However, Ofsted’s proposed changes have not gone far enough in considering who can access a school to start with, meaning there are still barriers to change on inclusion.
Fewer FSM pupils
Sutton Trust research has shown a persistent issue with top performing schools taking on fewer children eligible for free school meals (FSM) than the national average, and often lower than their local average, too.
This leads to social segregation across our state comprehensive school system, with some schools taking on more socially diverse cohorts than others.
What’s more, while the system claims to prioritise the outcomes of children from vulnerable groups, little consideration is given to those children’s initial ability to get into a school.
This means schools can be rewarded for achieving well with their disadvantaged and SEND cohorts, even though they may have carefully curated those cohorts to keep them small.
As such, while it’s all well and good having a sentence in the Inclusion Toolkit stating pupils should feel welcomed and that they belong in their school, what about those disadvantaged kids who aren’t admitted in the first place?
A small reference to this in the toolkits would go a long way to supporting leaders, for example: ”Leaders have an astute understanding of the local community to ensure that they serve its needs and that barriers are removed for vulnerable children to access places at their school.”
Where does responsibility lie?
Disappointingly, though, it looks like Ofsted is unlikely to move on this issue any time soon.
Indeed, it recently stated that it is not responsible for inspecting the admissions arrangements of a school. But if this isn’t under the jurisdiction of Ofsted, then whose role is it?
Who will oversee policies that level the playing field between higher-income families who can afford a house in a high-demand catchment area and those who can’t? Who checks on the mainstream schools claiming they can’t meet the needs of a child with SEND?
Ultimately, inclusion isn’t just about what happens to children when they get to the school gates, it’s about ensuring everyone can get to the school gates. Fair admissions for all children are the bedrock of inclusive practices and need to be treated as such.
True inclusivity
Alongside a focus on who can access a school, we should also be considering how Ofsted reporting, alongside national outcomes, doesn’t further compound the disincentives for schools to be truly inclusive in their approach.
From our own internal analysis, we’ve seen social segregation is correlated with Ofsted ratings, with “outstanding” schools tending to be more socially selective than their local area, whereas those with “inadequate” ratings tend to take on a higher rate of disadvantaged pupils than live locally.
This should be an alarm bell for Ofsted and needs to be urgently reviewed.
The new report cards will go some way to address this issue by including information on the context of a school. But it’s not enough just to see the percentage of children eligible for FSM on a report card.
That context also needs to be taken into account throughout Ofsted’s framework and the way it grades schools.
Ofsted must hold schools to account
By including an indication of the level of challenges facing a school across many measures, alongside its outcome reports, it can show the journey the school has made as well as its final outcome.
Until these changes are made, school leaders will always be under pressure to curate their intakes. But there must be a solution where Ofsted can hold schools to account without frightening leaders into playing it safe for the sake of their Ofsted grade.
Charlotte O’Regan is senior schools engagement manager at the Sutton Trust
For the latest education news and analysis delivered every weekday morning, sign up for the Tes Daily newsletter
