The government has scrapped one-word Ofsted ratings, but is it enough to fix the school inspection system? Dr Meng Tian explains the perfect storm of Ofsted.
On September 2nd, the Labour government announced the immediate abolition of the Ofsted single-phrase judgment (i.e., Outstanding, Good, Requires Improvement, Inadequate) following an inquest into Headteacher Ruth Perry’s tragic suicide in early 2023. Report cards are expected to replace headline grades in September 2025. Another significant change involves replacing the academy conversion or intervention of struggling schools that receive two consecutive below ‘Good’ Ofsted judgments with increased support. Academics and practitioners may view these changes as a step in the right direction. However, the government must be cautious not to implement superficial remedies that merely address symptoms while leaving the root causes of the problem unaddressed.
As I have written about previously, Ofsted has, over the past 32 years, organically grown into the most dominant player in the complex education inspection system. It employs several strategies to amplify its power over schools. These strategies include controlling the four-point grading system, using punitive measures to enforce compliance, altering inspection frameworks to keep schools continually anxious and distracted, silencing potential challengers by increasing the procedural, emotional, and financial costs of complaints against Ofsted, and creating an Ofsted-dependent consultancy market that sells inspection solutions to schools at a premium.
Out of fear and distrust, school leaders, teachers, and students have learned to present their best performances, recite curated responses, and hide weaker subjects and students during inspections.
These strategies have granted Ofsted unparalleled power over schools. Out of fear and distrust, school leaders, teachers, and students have learned to present their best performances, recite curated responses, and hide weaker subjects and students during inspections. To prevent schools from window-dressing, Ofsted introduced short notice periods. Consequently, instead of becoming more authentic, schools have become hyper-vigilant. Research shows that being “Ofsted-ready” means that schools operate in a state of post-panopticism: they have internalised Ofsted’s top-down surveillance and automatically demonstrate excessive conformity in daily operations.
At the Education Leadership Academy, we conducted interviews with both school headteachers and inspectors to understand both perspectives following the Ruth Perry case. Both sides acknowledge that the underlying issues arise from mutual distrust as well as imbalanced power dynamics between Ofsted and schools. Most interviewees agree that it is essential to hold schools accountable for their quality of education and safeguarding duties. Safeguarding should be inspected, and schools with safeguarding concerns should be given an opportunity to rectify the problem before results are published to the public. Besides English Baccalaureate subjects and phonics, inspectors should examine a wider range of subjects and their delivery. Inspection reports should contain information that genuinely helps parents understand school performance and guide school choice, such as school reputation, other parents’ views, extracurricular activities, and school accessibility. The inspection team should be more diverse in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, and subject backgrounds. Some safeguarding issues have been overlooked because inspectors lack cultural sensitivity or ask inappropriate questions.
In a complex system, a single school’s Ofsted grade can have a disproportionately large impact on other parts of the system, such as a headteacher’s job security and life, house prices in a local community, and the future prospects of hundreds of students.
In recent years, Ofsted has been politicised to accelerate the Department for Education's academisation process and endorse the English Baccalaureate, using inspection as a tool. This has undermined Ofsted's credibility and impartiality. Ofsted’s disposition as a force for improvement, not an improvement agency, conveys the impression that they are merely there to judge schools and then walk away.
After introducing the new inspection framework in 2019, Ofsted set very ambitious inspection targets. Many inspectors left Ofsted to become consultants, attracted by lighter workloads and better salaries. In recent years, Ofsted has recruited a greater number of younger, less-experienced His Majesty’s Inspectors, providing them with minimal training before sending them to inspect schools. The combination of heavy workloads, high turnover, power imbalances, fear, distrust, a profit-driven consultancy market, and the government’s hidden political agendas has created a ‘perfect storm’ of inspection in England.
To effect positive changes within Ofsted, the new Secretary of State for Education, Bridgit Phillipson, must understand that the distrust and fear surrounding Ofsted have accumulated over the past three decades. In a complex system, a single school’s Ofsted grade can have a disproportionately large impact on other parts of the system, such as a headteacher’s job security and life, house prices in a local community, and the future prospects of hundreds of students. While replacing single-phrase judgements with report cards is a welcome move, it is far from enough. If the root causes listed above are not addressed, the report card system will soon become just another superficial fix and a new game to play.
I spent nine years studying and working in Finland. One thing the Finns are particularly proud of is that they abolished school inspections in the 1990s, choosing instead to invest in university-based teacher education, grant greater trust and autonomy to schools, and use sample-based standardised testing for school improvement purposes. Finland now has one of the best-performing basic education systems in the world, achieved with lower government investment and shorter school days.
England may not be ready to abolish Ofsted. However, if Ofsted genuinely wants to become a critical friend to schools, it should focus on collaborating with schools to create bespoke improvement plans and advising local and national education authorities on optimising resource distribution. I am certainly not the first to say that school leaders and teachers are professionals who perform best when they are trusted, supported, and respected. A professional inspectorate means that Ofsted should be non-partisan and operate independently, without fear or favour.
Associate Professor in Educational Leadership
Dr Meng Tian is an Associate Professor in Educational Leadership at the School of Education, University of Birmingham
