From the outset, the role of Ofsted’s curriculum research reviews (OCRR) has proved controversial.

Because while the aim for these reviews - to “support and inform” curriculum leaders’ thinking - seems relatively innocuous, even admirably transparent perhaps, two key issues are coming to light.

The first is around the concept of the inspectorate setting out what it considers good teaching. For example, academics at University College London have questioned the ”appropriateness of a regulatory body engaging in research synthesis for arguably political and/or ideological ends”.

A similar point was made by a headteacher at a conference last year, who said it risked creating confusion for headteachers and staff: “It is not just a philosophical point but we have broken the link between Ofsted checking that we are doing the right things and the DfE setting the parameters, the accountability rules.”

These comments recognise the danger of a closed system where Ofsted - a regulator whose role is to ensure that the education system operates as it should - tries to set the subject agendas.

Yet in our high-stakes accountability system, many schools will react to these OCRRs to try and replicate inspectorial philosophy and direction in classroom practice and the supporting subject documentation to satisfy inspectors conducting “deep dives”. 

This is troubling enough but it has brought another issue to light. Because while Ofsted claims its inspection frameworks are “based on sound evidence and tested methodologies”, as more OCRRs are published, a growing body of evidence across at least three subjects is arguing that the research being used to inform the reviews is unreliable. 

Ofsted subject research reviews: issues with the evidence

For example, the Association of Mathematics Education Teachers (AMET) sent an excoriating complaint about Ofsted’s mathematics research review that challenged the research base used.

It pointed out that authoritative academic literature reviews are open-ended, using the available research to form a thesis, rather than selecting research to fit an existing thesis - in this case, Ofsted’s principles as set out in the Education Inspection Framework (EIF). 

AMET noted that not all sources were based on classroom research: some were from university settings, and some too small-scale to generalise from. It saw the dominance of US research as being of questionable value, since the UK performs better than the US in international comparisons.

Deeper research into the OCRR revealed that “many of the references do not support the points that Ofsted has made”. In a deep dive of its own, AMET’s academics “identified concerns with the way 165 citations were used to support claims or statements made by Ofsted”.

Similar criticism is echoed and amplified in the English and Media Centre’s (EMC) Response to Ofsted curriculum research review: English.

It lists 10 areas of concern with the report, from a “false separation of pedagogy and curriculum” and “unsubstantiated claims for the role of grammar” to taking a “limited view of assessment” and “factual and disciplinary errors”.

Again the research base was particularly called into question, with the response arguing that it “barely touches on some key areas of the subject, and does not even dip a toe into the research that is available on pedagogy and practices relating to them”.

“There is nothing at all on research on the teaching of poetry, nothing on drama (aside from one reference to Shakespeare), nor on non-fiction texts,” it adds.

“There is nothing on the teaching of creative writing. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is also nothing at all about the teaching of media within English, or even the notion of media literacy. In a review of English teaching, these absences are nothing short of scandalous.”

It also notes that despite cognitive science being used as the basis for much of the EIF, the fact that there is no research into cognitive science in English - as shown in the Education Endowment Foundation’s (EEF) Cognitive Science Approaches in the Classroom (2021) report - means using the EIF for the basis of the review is problematic.

“Because it is based on the EIF, the parameters are set narrowly along lines that are themselves flawed and partial, ignoring a wealth of important research that does exist specifically about subject English and its pedagogies,” the EMC response says.

“So its conclusions are unhelpfully skewed, distorting or entirely ignoring important issues in teaching the subject.”

Similar concerns were echoed in a recent Tes article in which academics and teachers alike questioned the validity of the research and its application.

University College London (UCL) academics complained of similar reductive over-systematising in Ofsted’s recommendation that modern foreign languages (MFL) teaching should focus on three pillars of phonics, vocabulary and grammar, “at the expense of important dimensions of language learning such as the learner’s sense of identity or an exploration of how languages are relevant to them”. 

They said that vocabulary learning “promotes a focus on a limited number of high-frequency words at the expense of encouraging an adequate size of vocabulary to support meaningful language learning”.

As with English, there is considerable concern about the wealth of more recent, relevant subject-specific research that has been excluded.

In doubting “the veracity of the conclusions drawn”, UCL goes one step further, questioning the integrity of the whole exercise, calling it a “thinly veiled politicisation of (language) teaching”).

And by highlighting the impact of faulty research on teachers’ role “as pedagogical agents”, UCL presents a stark warning that teachers’ professional autonomy and judgement is being eroded if they are no longer trusted to adapt their curriculum and pedagogy to their own contexts.

Trying to square the circle

UCL, AMET and the EMC et al emphasise that the regulator’s parameters are too narrow. In rooting all OCRRs in the EIF, Ofsted has largely ignored the wealth of subject-specific research accumulated by expert academics and classroom practitioners over time.

It seems as if the inspectorate is trying to shoe-horn all disciplines into the same mould in order to make them fit the EIF.

The consequence is that pupils will be offered a much narrower, more formulaic curriculum and learning experience in the classroom - one that cannot be guaranteed to improve their learning.   

Ofsted says it is committed to high-quality inspections as a force for improvement of educational outcomes for children.

However, in venturing to set out the research and reasoning underpinning its inspection practice, Ofsted has exposed serious flaws in the way it selects and applies that research.

It lays itself open to the charge of working for what UCL calls “political and/or ideological ends” and thereby reveals the limitations of the research supporting its philosophies.

These shortcomings seriously undermine the credibility not only of Ofsted’s research groups but of the inspection work itself. This needs to be put right immediately. 

Otherwise, either schools will implement practices that are poorly understood and not necessarily evidence-led (let alone evidence-proved) or the more experienced, confident departments will be true to their professional values and work with their pupils to improve standards, risking adverse judgements in inspections to come. 

Neither is in the best interests of pupils.

Yvonne Williams has spent nearly 34 years in the classroom and 22 years as a head of English. She has contributed chapters on workload and wellbeing to the book, Mentoring English Teachers in the Secondary School

In response to the criticisms in this article an Ofsted spokesperson said: “Research lies at the heart of all we want to achieve. It ensures that we are looking at the right things when we inspect and regulate, and that we are following the best evidence on what makes good and effective provision.

“Our subject research reviews are underpinned by our Education Inspection Framework (EIF) and explore a wide and diverse range of research to identify factors that can contribute to high-quality curriculums, pedagogy, assessment and schools’ systems for managing subjects. The reviews help to inform our thinking around what makes a high-quality curriculum and are intended to be a useful source of information for schools.

“The next stage is to use their findings to examine how each subject is taught in England’s schools, and we will publish a second series of reports about what we have learned.”