By Andy Jordan, ASCL Inspection and Accountability Specialist 

This article is a response to the publication of the latest set of inspection outcomes by Ofsted and the acknowledgement by the watchdog that there is “a relationship between the level of disadvantage in a school and the school’s grade for the ‘achievement’ evaluation area.” This statement was based on whether a school was above or below the national average free school meals rate. This only tells part of the story and when analysis is done using the IDACI (Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index) quintile for each institution it reveals what those working in disadvantaged areas already know: schools and colleges in areas of high deprivation are significantly less likely to receive the expected grade for achievement.

During his speech at ASCL Annual Conference in March, Sir Martyn Oliver said that “context needs to sit at the heart of what we do.” The principle that Ofsted will look beyond raw data and put vulnerable learners at the heart of inspection was warmly welcomed by school and college leaders up and down the country. However, the latest Ofsted data suggests HMCI’s rhetoric is not reflected in inspection outcomes, particularly on achievement.

Examining the data
Thirty five percent of all schools in the bottom quintile for deprivation (in some of the lowest income areas of the country) failed to make the expected standard in the achievement evaluation area. Compare that to schools in the top quintile (located in the most affluent areas) and this figure drops to 12%. This strongly suggests that Ofsted’s approach to evaluating achievement disadvantages schools serving our poorest communities. The secure fit methodology and the notion that schools must be ‘broadly in line with national averages’ to reach that standard are clearly revealing themselves to be the issue in inspection so far. Ofsted say that data is only one part of the evidence gathered during inspection but it sems to be key in informing how inspectors make judgements. 

If we focus on secondary schools alone (we have 190 reports analysed in this recent data release) then the situation is even more stark. Of the 30 secondary schools in the top IDACI quintile, three were below expected for achievement (10%). However, a staggering 52% of schools in the bottom quintile (29 out of 56 reports) failed to meet the expected standard. Such stark disparities are hard to reconcile with the claim that ‘context sits at the heart of inspection’.

Flawed approach
Some commentators could easily argue that these schools are worse, Ofsted is correct in its gradings, and inspection outcomes reflect the reality for these institutions. If that were the case the issue should be replicated in other evaluation areas. We could reasonably expect a similar number of schools to be ‘needs attention’ in other areas. That would make some sort of sense. So, as a comparison I have analysed outcomes for personal development and wellbeing. The results simply expose how flawed Ofsted’s approach to judging achievement has become. Using the same inspection reports and IDACI quintiles, fewer than 10% of all schools serving the most deprived communities were below expected. That is a 25% difference when compared to achievement. Same schools, same leadership teams and staff serving the same communities but a different evaluation area that is not tied to national average data. 

Others may point to the fact that there a national achievement gap linked to economic disadvantage, and so Ofsted are right to shine a light on this through the achievement grade. Yet such an argument undermines the Chief Inspector’s assertion that context is at the heart of inspection and Ofsted’s own principle that inspection should serve a different and distinct purpose from published data. Otherwise, what’s the point?

To compound matters, Ofsted acknowledges that achievement grades are often linked to judgements on teaching and curriculum. As a result, schools in the most challenging areas can quickly find multiple evaluation areas judged as ‘needs attention’ or worse, with questions then raised about leadership and governance too. The consequences are significant: damage to recruitment, reputational harm, and growing pressure on leaders working in the country’s most disadvantaged communities.

As Sir Martyn Oliver stated: “context needs to sit at the heart of what we do.” Sadly, it seems as if this is far from the case for schools in this country under this renewed framework.