The NEU is deeply concerned about Ofsted’s plans for a new inspection system and believe that they could make working conditions worse, not better for teachers, leaders and school staff.
In February, Ofsted launched a consultation outlining a new approach to inspect education in schools and other settings, including early years and further education and skills. This guidance applies only to those working in school settings.
The NEU urges all members to respond to the consultation, to make the voice of the profession heard and ensure that the wellbeing and welfare of school staff is at the heart of the radical reform we so desperately need.
The consultation is asking for feedback on five proposals:
What do you think about the layout of our new report cards?
This question asks for your views on the way the report cards are presented – which includes some written information about the school alongside grades it has been given in each evaluation area.
The NEU’s view: we are extremely concerned that the 1-5 grading scale in the report card continues the crude and blunt approach of the one-word judgement. We do not believe this will deliver better information for parents or school leaders, yet it maintains the high stakes for school staff.
We want Ofsted to rethink its grading approach. We know that narrative reports are favoured by many leaders, teachers and school staff and that there are other existing reporting models, such as the inspection reports in Wales, or local reports used in Camden, that would provide ‘granular’ information for parents but with greater nuance and less high stakes than what is currently on the table.
Q: What do you think about the evaluation areas?
The evaluation areas for schools cover:
- leadership and governance
- curriculum
- developing teaching
- achievement
- behaviour and attitudes
- attendance
- personal development and wellbeing
- inclusion
- safeguarding
The NEU’s view: We do not dispute that many of the areas identified by Ofsted are important for ensuring effective teaching and learning and providing a supportive, safe and inclusive environment for students and staff. What is at stake, however, is the ability of the Inspectorate to properly evaluate schools across so many areas. We think that there are too many evaluation areas to inspect in two days, and this will lead to inspections being less reliable than they already are and therefore lead to unfair outcomes for schools. We believe that there should be serious consideration to how the evaluation areas could be reduced.
We are also concerned that some evaluation areas will disproportionately penalise some types of schools - such as smaller schools, primary schools and those in disadvantaged areas. For instance, if Ofsted looks at achievement in national tests and examinations and this is weighted heavily in the final ‘grade’ a school gets in this evaluation area, we are concerned that this will become a proxy for schools in high poverty areas, as was the case for the inspection system before 2019.
We are also concerned that some evaluation areas hold schools to account for issues that are beyond the school’s control. For example, good attendance and inclusive practice is dependent on other factors –such as the provision of services around the school to support children and young people. Ofsted must be clear that it will only hold schools to account for those areas it can control.
What do you think of our proposed 5-point scale for reporting our inspection findings? (the scale ranges from 'causing concern' to 'exemplary')
The NEU’s view: As above, we are deeply concerned that the 1-5 grading scale in the report card is a crude and blunt approach. We do not believe it delivers better, more nuanced, information for parents or school leaders yet it maintains the high stakes for school staff.
What do you think about our approach to 'exemplary' practice?
Ofsted is proposing that exemplary practice will only be awarded in an evaluation area if the school is ‘at least secure across all other evaluation areas’. Once the exemplary practice has been identified, it will be moderated and confirmed by a national quality and consistency panel. Ofsted will share exemplary practice through the Ofsted Academy.
The NEU’s view: All schools will have examples of the extraordinary work they do with pupils and staff, often in challenging circumstances. It is essential that exemplary practice, wherever it is found, can be shared widely. We are concerned that with this approach, much exemplary practice will be missed, and schools will not have the opportunity to share and celebrate their achievements. The need to have a national quality and consistency panel to verify exemplary practice appears to be an overly complicated route to help schools learn from each other and we do not think it is necessary.
What do you think about the other evaluation scales we have considered?
Other options Ofsted has considered include:
- a binary met/not met scale
- a 3-point scale
- a 4-point scale
- a 4+ scale
- a 7-point scale
The NEU’s view: The NEU supports a narrative approach to a report card, where no grades/ scales are used.
Do you have any other ideas we could consider?
The NEU’s view: Yes. We believe that there are a range of models that Ofsted could look at and learn from. These include the model of inspection in Wales – where grades are no longer used. It also includes local models that are being developed in Camden, Milton Keynes and Sheffield: Ofsted: The schools already drawing up their own report cards
What do you think about including data alongside report cards, for example information about how well children and learners achieve?
Ofsted propose to summarise information on the provider and local area alongside the report card. Data could include
- characteristics of children/learners – including those who are disadvantaged and those with SEND
- outcomes – performance data for all children and learners and for particular groups, including those who are disadvantaged;
- absence and attendance – including those with persistent absence
- local area data – including deprivation and relevant characteristics of the local community, availability and quality of other educational and care provision in the area, as well as any provision/services a child or learner may move onto next.
The NEU’s view: We are extremely concerned about the proposal to include data on outcomes without context or narrative behind this data. We believe doing so would be counterproductive to driving inclusion, potentially misleading, and risk duplicating information that exists elsewhere, or that may be included in the forthcoming DfE school profile.
What do you think about the school inspection toolkit?
The NEU’s view: The NEU is concerned that the criteria used for the different judgements are too vague to meaningfully allow schools to understand what a ‘secure’ judgement is and what is a ‘strong’ judgement. A lack of clarity will also make it difficult for inspectors to make reliable and consistent judgements. We also are concerned that this will:
- increase workload - particularly for heads and middle leaders as they self-assess against the multiple new evaluation areas and individual grades.
- Continue to drive a compliance culture as schools rush to meet the new criteria
- Further standardise our education system rather than empower schools to respond to their local context.
What do you think about our working definition of inclusion, and how we will inspect inclusion?
You can find Ofsted’s working definition of inclusion under ‘proposal 2’ – education inspection toolkits: Improving the way Ofsted inspects education: consultation document - GOV.UK
How they will inspect inclusion in schools is outlined in the school inspection toolkit. Inclusion is a theme that runs throughout all evaluation areas.
The NEU’s view: The way in which Ofsted inspects inclusion cannot be divorced from the system as a whole and the unintended consequences it drives: a compliance, tick box culture, high workload for staff and poor wellbeing. These factors work against supporting schools to truly embed inclusion and build capacity to improve inclusive practice.
We believe that for inclusive practice in schools to be transformative for disadvantaged, minoritised and SEND pupils, schools need access to resource, and pupils need access to the appropriate external services. What inclusion looks like in one school will not be the same in another school, with a different context. In other words, how inclusion is inspected needs to reflect the school’s context and its access to external services and support.
In relation to state-funded schools, how suitable is the toolkit for use in special schools and alternative providers?
The NEU’s view: We are concerned that a framework designed with schools in mind may not be suitable for special schools and alternative providers given how different these settings are. Many of our members in special schools and alternative provision did not feel the last framework reflected their contexts- we would urge members in these settings to outline their views about how this new approach would/would not apply.
In relation to state-funded schools, do you think the toolkit will be suitable for different phases of education and other types of providers?
The NEU’s view: We would urge members to let Ofsted know whether you think the toolkit is suitable for your setting. Many educators felt the last framework was designed for secondary, not primary schools and were disproportionately impacted as a result.
What do you think about our proposed changes to how we carry out an inspection?
From November 2025, Ofsted will no longer carry out deep dives. Instead of deep dives, inspectors will work with leaders as they decide the areas to focus on.
Schools will be inspected against the standards outlined in the new education toolkits. The toolkits describe the quality they would expect to see at each point on the scale for each evaluation area. All inspections will start by discussing and observing the provider’s work against the ‘secure’ column. For each evaluation area there will be a focus on leadership and the extent of inclusive practice within it. The overall grade for each evaluation area will be reflected in the report card. For full details please see the consultation document.
The NEU’s view: We welcome the removal of deep dives from inspection as this drove considerable and unnecessary workload for school staff, particularly in primary schools. However, as above, the NEU is concerned that the criteria used for the different judgements are too vague to meaningfully allow schools to understand what a ‘secure’ judgement is and what is a ‘strong’ judgement. A lack of clarity will also make it difficult for inspectors to make reliable and consistent judgements.
These questions may be most relevant for staff in senior leadership positions.
What do you think about our proposed changes to monitoring?
Currently in the Education Inspection Framework (EIF) monitoring visits would be applicable for schools that:
- Are graded as requires improvement or inadequate for at least one key or provision judgement in the last inspection;
- Are placed in a category of concern.
This criteria remains similar under the current proposals. However, we believe that more schools will be at risk of monitoring because there are now more judgement areas (from 4 to up to 11.) For instance, under the current proposals, schools that have any evaluation area graded as ‘attention needed,’ will be subject to a monitoring visit. For those schools, Ofsted will continue to monitor the school until it is judged to be at least secure across all areas.
For schools placed in a category of concern, Ofsted will monitor more regularly. For schools in need of ‘significant improvement,’ Ofsted are proposing to complete 5 monitoring inspections within 18 months. For schools that are in ‘special measures’ Ofsted would complete 6 monitoring inspections within 24 months unless issues have been resolved earlier.
Under the current system, a school in a category of concern may receive up to 5 monitoring inspections over 2.5 years. We believe these reforms therefore indicate an overall increase in monitoring for schools in a category of concern as well as potentially more intense, regular monitoring given the shorter timespan in which monitoring visits will take place.
The NEU’s view: We disagree with the proposals to increase and make monitoring visits more regular, for schools in a category of concern. Previous evidence done on ‘stuck schools’ highlighted how monitoring visits did not help them to improve, were inconsistent and contributed to staff feelings of oversurveillance. The proposals risk intensifying these existing problems as well as driving workload. Instead of increasing monitoring visits, a shift towards greater support for schools, (whether in a category of concern or not) such as through the new RISE teams, is essential.
What do you think about how we propose to identify schools causing concern?
Currently, if Ofsted finds that any one of the four ‘key judgement’ areas is inadequate and/or safeguarding is ineffective, it will place a school in a formal category of concern.
Under the new proposals, a decision on whether to place a school in a category of concern would depend on how Ofsted assesses the school in relation to the new “evaluation areas”.
If any one of these areas, excluding leadership, are graded as ‘causing concern’ and /or if safeguarding is not met, the school will be placed in a category of concern and requiring significant improvement. If Ofsted decides leadership is also ‘causing concern’, then the school will be placed in the more serious category of ‘special measures.’
Whether a school is categorised as requiring significant improvement or in special measures will determine whether the school faces structural intervention.
The NEU’s view: We are concerned that these proposals will only increase stress associated with inspections because staff, particularly school leaders, will be under huge pressure to ensure they avoid a ‘causing concern’ judgement in any one of the new areas, particularly in relation to leadership, as this would result in the more serious designation of ‘special measures.’ Whilst we acknowledge that there is a role for an inspection system to ensure that schools are meeting their legal requirements, such as legal safeguarding requirements, we believe that schools that are experiencing significant challenges need support, not increased monitoring from Ofsted, and the threat of structural intervention.
If you are only able to complete one section of the consultation, we advise you and your colleagues to focus on this vital area.
What do you consider are the likely workload and well-being implications of these proposals for state-funded schools?
We encourage you to draw upon your personal experience of inspections and whether you think these proposals will increase/ decrease workload and/or make a significant difference to your wellbeing.
The NEUs view: The NEU believes that these proposals are likely to increase workload, particularly for school leaders and middle leaders as they will need to self-assess against the multiple new evaluation areas and individual grades. A system that drives high workload and reduces leaders’ and teachers’ control over their working time is also a system that drives poor mental health and wellbeing. Overall, we believe the proposals continue a high stakes system that fails to address the enormous concerns of the profession as well as the recommendations of the coroner’s report on the prevention of future deaths following the tragic death of Ruth Perry.