The Guardian view on one-word Ofsted reports: good riddance

The end of one-word inspection judgments on English schools was promised in Labour’s manifesto. So the decision announced on Monday by Bridget Phillipson was not a surprise. But it was a relief. Teacher recruitment and retention problems have been made worse by challenging working conditions, in which the stress associated with an Ofsted inspection is a significant factor. Since the suicide of headteacher Ruth Perry last year, after her school was downgraded to inadequate, the issue has become totemic. The one-word report came to symbolise everything that is punitive about the current regime.
Schools are having a rocky time of it. The exam system has settled down after the disruption of Covid. But concerns around pupil attendance, mental health, poverty, behaviour, repairs backlogs (particularly in schools with Raac buildings) and the unmet needs of pupils with special educational needs are all raising the pressure on staff who already fulfil demanding roles. Given the difficulties involved in addressing these issues, and following ministers’ acceptance of a recommended 5.5% pay rise for teachers, tackling Ofsted was a prudent next move.
Details of the report cards that will replace the old headline judgments will have to be worked out before they come in next year. As it stands, the plan is that schools will still be judged in four areas, including education and behaviour. Websites and banners on railings will, in future, presumably find ways to display more information. Parents will compare schools using four separate ratings, as opposed to just one.
If this sounds reasonable, that’s because it is. Suggestions that by abandoning one-word judgments the government is caving in to the trade unions, and abandoning parents, are ridiculous. Encouraging people to recognise nuances when they make school choices is a good idea. It is in the interests of the whole of society, and above all children, that morale in the sector is improved, so that talented and motivated graduates want to work in it.
The question is whether the proposed changes go far enough, and whether Ofsted is resourced to do the new task required of it. Already, schools have been told they will have to contribute to teacher pay out of existing budgets, and it is not clear where an Ofsted budget rise will come from.
Accountability, Ms Phillipson said, is non‑negotiable. Children are entitled to a good education and the state must ensure it is provided. A robust inspectorate, and mechanisms to address failure, are part of this – as they are in other public services. But doubts about the trustworthiness and consistency of Ofsted’s judgments must be addressed. So must the inspectorate’s lack of powers over the multi-academy trusts that control 64% of secondaries – whose leaders are wrongly exempted from scrutiny under existing rules. The suggestion from Sir Michael Wilshaw, a former chief inspector, that in future trusts rather than individual schools should be inspected, is worth exploring.
It has long been the case that a majority of state secondary schools are no longer accountable to local government. England remains a highly centralised state in education. Ms Phillipson will retain her power to compel change at schools that would have previously been judged inadequate. However, Labour promises a boost to regional school improvement teams, and more support for struggling schools. The direction of travel is positive – away from Whitehall bossiness and towards a slow restoration of autonomy for the sector.