Ofsted’s chief inspector, Sir Martyn Oliver, announced recently that the new school inspection framework will be “probably the biggest change since we were developed back in 1992” .

He was referring specifically to the removal of the overall effectiveness grade from inspections, but it is clear that in recent months Ofsted has been extolling the virtues of a “reformed” approach to school inspection.

Time will tell how the new inspection framework will actually be received.

Lessons from Ofsted past

Nearly all newly appointed chief inspectors want to stamp their mark on the school inspection process. This has varied in recent times from Amanda Spielman’s focus on curriculum to Michael Wilshaw’s prioritisation of leadership and behaviour.

Most of these chief inspectors have argued that theirs was the most significant change in many years, but I would argue that the inspection framework introduced by Sir David Bell in September 2005 was the most radical.

This framework significantly reduced the length of notice that schools received of their inspection from between six to10 weeks to typically two days, and reduced the number of grades from seven to four, as well as cutting the time between inspections from six years to three years.

It also placed a strong emphasis on accurate self-evaluation by the school. He made clear that after 12 years of inspection activity it was time for Ofsted to refocus on what was important.

I have a long career of working for Ofsted and this has involved working at a senior level developing a number of school, initial teacher training and local authority inspection frameworks.

Judging the new inspection framework

The real test of the validity of such frameworks does not become apparent in the early weeks because some careful selection is usually undertaken to reduce the chances of early hiccups. (Although Ofsted made changes to the arrangements for small schools on 5 November, less than a week before the launch of this new framework - I didn’t expect it to be revisiting the arrangements quite so soon.)

Irrespective, the wider test is six months or so into the process, when a wider range of schools and a wider group of inspectors have engaged with it. So, in many respects, the jury is out.

It is clear that the new inspection arrangements have not been universally welcomed. Many, including me, believe radical reform was necessary rather than a “renewed” inspection framework.

The significant concerns expressed in the coroner’s prevention of future deaths report following the tragic death of headteacher Ruth Perry in 2023 and the report from the Commons Education Select Committee, which indicated that “Ofsted has lost trust and credibility among many in the teaching profession”, made it clear that following a broadly similar inspection approach was never going to assuage the doubters.

What is interesting to note is how the 2005 inspection framework was received by the professional associations and the wider education world.

The Secondary Heads Association and the National Association of Headteachers said they welcomed shorter notice periods for inspections, which they believed would remove anxiety, and many saw the shift to self-evaluation as an important pivot in the relationship between schools and inspectors.

Age-old problems

It is quite telling that despite these changes, the NAHT leader at the time said that “a more intelligent system for taking a school’s context into account” was needed.

Many would argue that this remains a major weakness in the way inspection is conducted.

I believe the 2005 framework was a bold attempt to reshape the relationship between schools and those who inspect them. In a similar way to all frameworks, it was never likely to be perfect. An important element was the time, close on a year, given to inspectors and HMI in preparation for the shift in inspection emphasis.

I’m pretty certain many would have complained vociferously if they had to wade through 50 or so online modules (a requirement of the current arrangements) that made no allowance for expertise in particular aspects, subjects or themes of the inspection process.

An NFER report commissioned by Ofsted in 2006 identified that the most significant changes were:

• It improved schools’ skills in self-evaluation, which they felt to be central to institutional improvement.
• Dialogue with inspectors stimulated further discussion and reflection within the institution.
• When the inspection confirmed schools’ own analysis, it gave them confidence and boosted morale.
• Although schools believed that inspection rarely identified new actions for improvement, it helped them to prioritise.

So the 2005 framework delivered major reforms without losing the trust of the sector. It is perhaps noteworthy how the relationship and trust between the inspectorate and schools have deteriorated in the past 20 years.

Will the new framework deliver more consistent and reliable inspection judgements that can be trusted? Only time will tell, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Ofsted is revisiting the arrangements sooner rather than later.

Frank Norris is a former senior His Majesty’s Inspector and co-founder of The Alternative Big Listen and The Alternative Big Consultation - alternative consultation exercises on Ofsted’s proposals for the new inspection framework

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