This may put some people off reading this article, but I’m currently living in that glorious period known as the post-Ofsted year. It’s still less than 12 months since my school was last given a clean bill of health by Wilshaw’s army, and - barring any great catastrophe - a good two years before they darken our door once more.

In truth, our Ofsted experience was very fair and sensible, so I’ve no complaints on that front. But there is something quite nice about being able to make decisions for the benefit of the school and its children, without having to worry about how change might look in the immediate future.

You might think that I’d be glad to see that gap extended: wouldn’t longer without a visit be better? If we’d reached the dizzy heights of “outstanding” (whatever that means), it would have kept Ofsted at bay indefinitely - and think of the changes we could have made then. The trouble with this argument is it presumes that once a school knows what it’s doing, nothing will change.

Reality, of course, is not like that - especially not in education. Ten years ago, it might have been possible to achieve an “outstanding” status based on a school filled with activities about “learning muscles” and a beautiful display on connectives. If a school is still doing the same today, I’d have my doubts. Staying still doesn’t cut it.

Change at the top

Perhaps the premise is that an outstanding leadership team would always be on top of the latest changes. Well, my own knowledge of some “outstanding” schools suggests otherwise. More to the point, eventually the leadership team changes. Surely it can’t be right that a school can maintain its “outstanding” status and face no scrutiny just because the head-before-last managed to get a decent team in place just before she retired? If they have all since moved on, it can’t be sensible to presume that, just because the Sats results look OK, all is dandy.

At the very core of Ofsted’s work these days is the all-important safeguarding judgement. A cock-up with your single central record and suddenly your very positive judgement can edge towards special measures. Who is making these checks in “outstanding” schools? As “outstanding” schools take on the extra responsibilities of teaching schools, training partnerships, regional headteacher boards and school-to-school support, who is making sure that the leadership team isn’t spread too thinly to take proper care of its own pupils?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to argue that “outstanding” schools are largely failing. I’m sure many of them continue to do excellent work. But let’s be realistic. We expect excellent headteachers to turn things around from “inadequate” to “outstanding” in a couple of years; surely it must be feasible that a poor headteacher could achieve the reverse in just as short a timespan. Maybe in a well-to-do area where parents take up the slack, that won’t necessarily lead to a drop in results - but it’s not all about results.

I want to believe Ofsted when it says inspections are not predetermined by the data in RaiseOnline. But if we’re serious about rating schools on their present, not their past, and making safeguarding an absolute priority, then it should be the aim of new chief inspector Amanda Spielman to see that extended to all schools - no matter how good they were in 2008.

Michael Tidd is deputy head at Edgewood Primary School in Nottinghamshire @MichaelT1979

Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow TES on Twitter and like TES on Facebook