Navigating the Ofsted inspection framework

The Overall Effectiveness Judgement, otherwise known as the ‘one-word’ or single phrase judgement, disappeared in September 2024.

Instead of a one-word judgement, schools will receive multiple phrase judgements (or ‘grades’) for each ‘Evaluation area’ (see below).

These judgements will be publicly presented on a new ‘Report Card’. 

The end of judging (and publicly defining) a school in a single word or phrase, other than where the school is placed in a Category of Concern, where the decision to place the school “in a category” will be stated alongside the set of individual report card judgements for each Evaluation Area.

The need for schools to effectively communicate more complicated inspection outcomes to different audiences.

The potential opportunity for schools to emphasise their success during an inspection in a more nuanced way, proclaiming that their practice is ‘Strong Standard’ or ‘Exceptional’ in Leadership and Governance or Achievement or Behaviour and Attitudes, rather than simply ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ in an overall sense.

The current four-point scale is replaced by a new five-point one, splitting the former ‘Good’ judgement into two distinct judgements, Expected Standard and Strong Standard.

The full scale is 

•  ‘Urgent Improvement’ (Red)
• ‘Needs Attention’ (Amber)
• ‘Expected Standard’ (Light Green)
• ‘Strong Standard’ (Dark Green)
• ‘Exceptional’ (Blue)

The splitting of the former ‘Good’ judgement into two judgements (Expected Standard and Strong Standard) remains the substantive change.

Schools are expected to use new Inspection Toolkits to understand the distinctions between the graded judgements. 

The new grading scale retains the blunt, reductive approach of the previous system. 

Schools will continue to experience a high stakes inspection system that will impact on the workload and wellbeing of school staff. 

We recommend that all schools use the NEU’s Ofsted Risk Assessment Guide to help mitigate the worst impacts of inspections.

Each evaluation area will be presented on a school’s ‘Report Card.’

The evaluation areas are:

• inclusion’
• ‘curriculum and teaching’
• ‘achievement’
• ‘attendance and behaviour’
• ‘personal development and well-being’
• ‘leadership and governance’.

There will be a separate ‘early years’ and ‘post 16 provision’ evaluation areas for inspections of schools with early years and/or sixth form provision.

‘Safeguarding’ will be graded as either ‘met’ or ‘not met.’ 

The increase in the number of Evaluation Areas requires inspectors to ‘cover’ an increased range of areas in inspections of the same length. This may worsen existing issues of reliability and consistency. 

We may see an increased variation between Evaluation Area judgements (given the significant growth in the number of Evaluation Areas), giving rise to ‘spikey’ Ofsted profiles.

Report cards may increase the significance placed on the role of the pre-inspection call (now likely to be a video rather than a phone call) in ‘framing’ the inspection and outlining the school and community context.

The increase in the number of Evaluation Areas extends the reach of inspection into areas that are arguably more difficult to assess and areas that have not traditionally been assessed.

These changes are likely to significant impact on staff workload and, by extension, wellbeing.

We recommend that all schools use the NEU’s Ofsted Risk Assessment Guide to help mitigate the worst impacts of inspections.

The ‘Special Measures’ category remains, but ‘Serious Weaknesses’ is replaced by ‘Requires Significant Improvement’. 

A single ‘Red’ (Urgent Improvement) judgement will identify a school as Requires Significant Improvement (formerly Serious Weaknesses)

A school will be judged as requiring ‘Special Measures’ if Leadership and Governance is judged as in need of ‘urgent improvement’ and at least one or more of the other evaluation areas is found to need “urgent improvement” or safeguarding is “not met”.

Those schools placed in a Category of Concern face intervention from the new RISE Teams and monitoring visits from Ofsted.

If there is not sufficient evidence of improvement in 18 months, schools face structural intervention. 

This does little to change the existing high-stakes consequences for schools in the most challenging contexts. 

Any school accorded an Amber (Needs Attention) in any Evaluation Area will receive a Monitoring Inspection focused on that Evaluation Area, or a series of these until the Expected Standard is reached.

After a successful Monitoring Inspection, the judgement for the Evaluation Area concerned will be adjusted upward on the school Record Card, without the need for a full inspection. 

However, should a Monitoring Inspection suggest a decline in the quality of practice, either in the Evaluation Area or elsewhere, it will be converted into a full inspection.

A school can also become the subject of another form of monitoring, a Focused Inspection. 

This may arise when a complaint has been made about some aspect of a school’s practice, or where the school is subject to significant adverse media attention.

Increased likelihood of Monitoring Inspections- likely to place significant pressure on schools and on the capacity of the inspection system itself.

The prospect of possibly a series of Monitoring Inspections will mean that school leaders will have to focus on apparently weaker areas.

The possibility of receiving an Amber (Needs Attention) judgement is also likely to place a significant pressure on middle and senior leaders, both during the full inspection and any subsequent Monitoring Inspections.

As soon as a Monitoring Inspection reveals that the quality of practice in the relevant Evaluation Area has reached (or exceeded) the Expected Standard judgement, the school will have its Record Card adjusted accordingly. They do not need to have to wait until the next full inspection to gain accreditation for this progress. 

Monitoring Inspections and Focused Inspections can be converted into full inspections where broader issues of concern to the inspector(s) are identified, accentuating the pressure on workload and wellbeing across the school.

Exceptional Practice, at the top of the five-point scale, will be awarded if schools meet all the standards set out for ‘Strong Standard’ and can show inspectors that this practice is “embedded and sustained over time.”

If schools receive this grade, they are asked to ‘share their exceptional success.’ This could be through any appropriate method, for example, with other schools/providers, professionals, their community and stakeholders, including local and/or national networks.

To identify where practice is strongest, schools may find it helpful to use their self-evaluation form or other self-evaluation processes. 

Given the shortness of the inspection and the significant increase in the number of Evaluation Areas, schools will want to ensure that inspectors observe these areas of their practice and are advised to bring them to the lead inspector’s notice during the pre-inspection phone call.

In identifying potentially Exceptional practice, inspectors have been asked to assess practice is “embedded and sustained over time” and that it makes a “tangible difference” to children’s learning.

The end of ‘defining’ (or ‘limiting’) judgements, other than Safeguarding, and, in certain circumstance, Leadership and Governance

Other than safeguarding, each Evaluation Area formally enjoys equality of status.

However, the Leadership and Governance judgement has a particular importance in deciding whether a school enters a ‘Category of Concern’.

How the end of explicit hierarchies (such as those hitherto relating to Quality of Education in the 2019 framework) across Evaluation Areas plays out in practice will be vital.

It remains to be seen whether this equality of status across Evaluation Areas will survive in reality, or whether certain areas will emerge as being judged as more important than others. 

Many school leaders and staff could feel anxious and stressed about how the new system will play out and affect their school. 

In particular, there is a risk that new judgement hierarchies will emerge that are not made explicit, especially those that reflect traditional hierarchies of knowledge.

For example, the apparently stronger focus on data may favour these traditional hierarchies, with Evaluation Areas such as Achievement attracting greater attention than areas such as Inclusion and Personal Development and Wellbeing, in spite of the stated objectives of the reforms to consider context.

The Toolkits are detailed guides designed to “take any mystery out of inspection, so providers can be clear about what we will and, importantly, will not look at” such that leaders will “…no longer have to guess what’s in inspectors’ minds” (Sir Martyn Oliver, cited in Schools Week, 3rd February 2025).

There are five Toolkits:

1. Early years and childcare providers
2. State-funded schools
3. Non-association independent schools
4. Further education and skills
5. Initial teacher education

They are complemented by a set of Operating Guides, which set out inspection processes and methodologies. 

The Toolkits and Operating Guides set out inspectors’ expectations to a much greater degree than has traditionally been the case. 

The length of the Toolkit for state-funded schools runs to 80 pages in length. This places an enormous burden on staff, especially on those in leadership roles, either school-wide or with regard to specific Evaluation Areas.

This burden is added to by a set of Operating Guides that outline how inspectors will operate in different settings and the methodologies that they will employ. 

However, we believe the Operating Guides provide important information for school leaders and for holding inspectors to account. 

Safeguarding is not judged on the type of traffic light system used for other Evaluation Areas.

It is judged on a ‘Met’ or ‘Not Met’ basis.

The publication of the final report may be suspended for a short period in certain circumstances where a non-immediate safeguarding concern is addressed (Ofsted’s, Suspend and Return model.)

The Met/Not Met model may amount to a more simple and objective method for coming to a judgement on this Evaluation Area, such that policy and practice is deemed either sufficient or insufficient.

Where a ‘Not Met’ judgement excludes an immediate safeguarding concern, the school is likely to be given three months to act on this, with publication of the final report held off until an inspector has revisited the school and confirmed that the issue concerned has been addressed, an approach described as ‘Suspend and Return’.

This is a direct result of the Ruth Perry tragedy, where safeguarding issues led to the school being placed in Special Measures.

Ofsted have promised that inspectors will pay greater attention to a school’s context and assess a range of data relating to this in their pre-inspection analysis of the school. 

This will be discussed in the pre-inspection planning call and certain information about a school’s context will be published within the report card.

Although inspectors will form a view about context through their pre-inspection analysis, schools ought also to think about how they might best articulate the nature and impact of their context on their day-to-day practice to inspectors.

School leaders, in particular, ought to give special consideration to any ‘low visibility’ aspects of their context that may not be revealed by this pre-inspection analysis.

Local Area Data considered by inspectors will include specific community characteristics, deprivation indicators, local issues around the recruitment and retention of staff, the availability and quality of other care and education provision in the area, and any provision that learners are likely to move onto, and schools will need to be clear in their knowledge of this.

Effectively communicating the nature of a school’s context to inspectors is likely to be key to achieving a fair and reasonable inspection judgement.

For the first time, Inclusion is formally identified as an Evaluation Area within the inspection framework. 

The focus on disadvantaged and ‘vulnerable’ students is key to this.

This may offer an opportunity for schools with high numbers of vulnerable learners to showcase their practice but they are still likely to remain the schools placed under greatest pressure by the inspection system.

Schools with high numbers of vulnerable pupils have often struggled under previous inspection frameworks so the focus on inclusion in the 2025 framework may act as some form of rebalancer in this context.

Any over-representation of such learners in data around poor attendance, disruptive behaviour, exclusions and under-achievement is likely to attract the interest of inspectors.

Schools should be ready to explain any strategies designed to address these issues - whether these be behaviour support programmes, particular models of curriculum access, responsive teaching approaches, family engagement exercises or other initiatives.

A key element of the focus on inclusion is the effectiveness of the school’s work with those pupils presenting with SEND or potential SEND needs.

This includes the ability to ensure that SEND pupils access a full and rich curriculum, in particular by making the ‘reasonable adjustments’.

The increased focus on SEND ought to offer an opportunity for schools with high numbers of SEND students to get greater recognition for their work but it also significantly increases the pressure on these schools during an inspection.

Schools will need to be asked to demonstrate their impact in addressing the needs of SEND pupils, from processes for identification, through strategies for support, to learner outcomes.

Factors such as the effectiveness and resourcing of SEND support, the quality of curriculum experience afforded to those with identified needs, the school’s engagement in the process of precuring and delivering against EHCPs, and the comparative outcomes for such pupils are all likely to attract scrutiny.

In this context, the school’s provision for SEND-related professional development - both across the school and for specialist practitioners – is likely to be an area of interest, especially given the increasing reach and complexity of the SEND agenda.

Inspectors have also committed to reviewing SEND in light of the local context – and, specifically, LA provision, given disparities nationally.

Leaders and SEND co-ordinators ought to be able to articulate a clear understanding of local provision (or the lack of it) and their strategies for accessing what might be available.

The inter-play between those with SEND characteristics and those displaying other forms of vulnerability is also likely to spark inspectors’ interest. Schools will be asked about the appropriate data to show progress made by those students and where there is less progress to explain the reasons why (including lack of access to LA specialist services, time out of school for illness etc.)

All of this is likely to significantly impact on the workload and wellbeing of SENDCOs.

We recommend that all schools use the NEU’s Ofsted Risk Assessment Guide to help mitigate the worst impacts of inspections.

Deep dives were removed from ungraded inspections partway through the 2024-25 academic year.

They will not formally feature in the 2025 framework, partly due to the greater utilisation of a wider range of data than in the 2019 and 2024 frameworks. 

Under the 2019 and 2024 frameworks, deep dives placed considerable pressure on middle leaders with specific curriculum responsibilities, especially those who had no previous experience of them, those curriculum leaders who were at a relatively early stage in their teaching careers and those working in primary schools.

In the absence of these in-depth conversations, inspectors are likely to draw more heavily on data, especially outcomes data, thereby arguably valuing quantitative evidence over qualitative evidence, an approach that the NEU does not agree with – qualitative methodologies are vital in the contextualisation of apparently more objective ‘hard’ data.

In any case, the formal removal of curriculum-focused deep-dives does not mean that the methodology (of holding in-depth discussions) has been ditched, even if the terminology has. 

Inspectors are likely to continue to have such conversations with those leading Evaluation Areas.

Where inspectors hold such conversations focused on some Evaluation Areas and not others, this will give an indication of inspectors’ priorities (which may or may not reflect current stated political priorities), the conclusions they have drawn from their pre-inspection analysis of information about the school and its context, and any agreed priorities emerging from the pre-inspection call.

The shift away from the claimed subjectivity of curriculum-focused deep dives places a stronger focus on the assumed objectivity of outcomes data.

This will especially be the case relating to the outcomes for disadvantaged and otherwise ‘vulnerable’ learners.

Outcomes data, in this context, is not singularly about academic progress and outcomes, although these indicators are likely to provide a key starting point for inspectors.

There is likely to be an enduring interest in achievement in English (reading, writing and oracy) and Maths across all phases, especially for vulnerable and disadvantaged learners 

Schools will be expected to present and articulate how learners access a rich and broad curriculum experience, and how their personal development is supported and enriched, utilising quantitative data where appropriate.

The focus of inspectors is likely to fall less on the numbers in isolation and more on the patterns and changes underpinning these numbers, and the manner in which the school responds to these trends.

Leaders and curriculum managers, in particular, will be asked to demonstrate a grasp of the headlines emerging from their quantitative analysis, especially those that suggest differences in outcomes for disadvantaged students.

Leaders and curriculum managers will also be expected to have a sense of how schools in similar contexts are performing, and how the performance of their school or curriculum area compares with others, locally and nationally.

The pre-inspection call will provide leaders with an opportunity to demonstrate that they understand the various issues that have emerged from their data analysis, and how they are acting on these.

It will also provide an opportunity to point inspectors towards data sets and trends that may not have emerged in the inspectors’ pre-inspection analysis.

While outcomes data will continue to be important - and is likely to be granted greater importance than in the 2019 framework - a range of other data will also be of interest to inspectors.

Inspectors will assess a wider range of data than has typically been the case under previous frameworks.

Attendance, punctuality and exclusions data is likely to be of particular interest to inspectors, especially how this data maps onto the groups of students Ofsted has defined as ‘vulnerable’ and disadvantaged. 

Inspectors will be interested in how learners with SEND (both with and without EHCPs), those entitled to Pupil Premium support, those from under-resourced socio-economic groups, those who do not have English as their first language, those from different ethnic groups and those in or with experience of the care system perform in terms of attendance, punctuality and exclusions, and the read-across to their academic outcomes, their personal development and their broader participation in school life.

It is important that leaders, curriculum managers and department heads are able to understand the patterns and trends that lie within quantitative data and that they are able to show that they are making reasonable and sensible judgements about what data shows.

In the wake of the Ruth Perry tragedy and increased concerns about the mental wellbeing of staff and learners, wellbeing is formally acknowledged in the Evaluation Area, Personal Development and Wellbeing.

The formal consideration of wellbeing within the 2025 framework is some acknowledgement of system-wide concerns about the poor state of staff mental health and wellbeing. 

However, there is a failure to acknowledge that the inspection system, in its current form, is a major contributor to the workload and wellbeing challenges faced by education professionals.

The reforms do little, if anything, to address the inspection drivers of workload and wellbeing. Moreover, some colleagues are likely to be placed under even greater pressure by them – for instance, SENDCos.

School leaders will be asked to demonstrate how they support the personal development and wellbeing of both staff and pupils, both proactively (for instance through CPD and the curriculum).

The governing board will need to be able to demonstrate the place of Personal Development and Wellbeing within the ethos and values of the school and the means by which they oversee this.

The governing board will also need to demonstrate the ways in which it attends to the Personal Development and Wellbeing of the headteacher.

From November 2025, all regular inspections will be graded inspections, with a standardised time interval of four years between inspections in most settings.

Ungraded inspections (previously described as Section 8 or ‘short’ inspections) did not carry the same jeopardy for schools as graded inspections.

From November 2025, all inspections will be graded and, therefore, all schools will be subject to the same level of possible intervention following inspection.

In one of the more subtle changes to the framework, the Evaluation Area formally described as Leadership and Management is now recast as Leadership and Governance.

Governance has an enhanced status through recasting it as an element in the title of an Evaluation Area, rather than as a couple of bullet points within an Evaluation Area (as was the case with the 2019 framework)

This signals an increased role for the Governing Board in the inspection process.

Governors will need to be clear about their role and purpose in setting the ethos and strategic direction for the school and about how they proactively support the Head, senior leaders and the wider school community.

The option for schools to identify a designated senior staff member (called the ‘nominee’) to act as a point of contact for the lead inspector during the delivery of a school’s inspection

Nominees are ‘volunteer’ roles. 

This mirrors practice already established in the FE sector and will be seen as a direct response to three factors. 

First, the potential impact of the inspection process on staff wellbeing.

Second, concerns about the way in which some inspections have been conducted in the past.

Third, to provide a channel through which such concerns can be communicated to the lead inspector as they arise during the course of the inspection, especially where there is a significant gap between the school’s pre-inspection appraisal of its position and that emerging amongst inspectors during the course of the inspection, or where concerns about the wellbeing of staff emerge due to the impact of the inspection process.

The proposal for each school to have a ‘point of contact’, other than the headteacher, during inspection offers a potential means to deliver an inspection process that is “done with” not “done to” schools, a stated objective of the Chief Inspector.

It should enable Heads to share the inspection burden slightly more widely, at least during the course of the inspection week.

It is vital that schools pre-select who this designated individual will be and that they are given access to adequate professional development to perform the role confidently, such as attending training offered by Ofsted. 

In secondary schools and in larger primary, specialist and alternative settings, it would be wise to prepare two or more team members to perform this role.

It is important that headteachers have autonomy over who the nominee(s) are- rather than decisions being imposed by a MAT. 

As well as acting as point(s) of contact, the nominated individual(s) ought to join the pre-inspection phone call and the feedback meeting, and they ought to participate in the post-inspection ‘fact-checking’ exercise, prior to the publication of the final report.   

Further information about the role of the nominee is provided in Ofsted’s School Inspection Operating Guide.

In the words of the inspectorate, “the Ofsted Academy is where all of Ofsted’s work to attract, retain, train and develop inspectors and administrative, professional and technical (APT) colleagues comes together”. 

In what could prove a critical departure from previous practice, this web-based portal is open to all.

The publication of training and other inspection materials on a single open-access portal will be widely seen as a positive move to demystify inspection.

However, implicitly or explicitly, it will place a new responsibility on school leaders and teachers, namely that they acquaint themselves with these materials. This will be a driver of workload. 

This represents a significant culture change in that Ofsted leaders have in the past been critical about schools ‘preparing for inspection’, a criticism that has been likened by one critic to being “akin to telling young people not to prepare for their examinations”.

This may serve to increase inspection preparation, such that it is no longer just open to those schools with sufficient budgets to hire external consultants to aid their preparation, schools that are often in more advantaged settings in the first place. 

It could also mean an increase in a culture of compliance as schools seek to jump through Ofsted’s hoops.