Ofsted’s new inspection arrangements
NASUWT concerns
Concerns about inspection
Performance tables and floor standards
 

Ofsted’s new inspection arrangements

Why are Ofsted changing the inspection arrangements?

Ofsted periodically review and update the education inspection framework. These reviews tend to take place every four or five years, often following the appointment of a new HMCI. However, the current review is different because it also commits to address the issues highlighted in the Coroner’s report into the death of the headteacher Ruth Perry.[1]

In its response to the report, Ofsted set out a number of commitments and actions, including a commitment to transparency and partnership working. It announced the Big Listen and said that this would inform consideration of more substantial changes to inspection.

What are the main changes to inspection?

Ofsted has not given an overall judgement grade in school inspections since September 2024. The arrangement has been extended to cover the inspection of all education providers. Under the new arrangements, providers just receive graded judgments for each evaluation area.

In the case of state funded schools, the evaluation areas are:

  • safeguarding;

  • inclusion;

  • curriculum and teaching;

  • achievement;

  • attendance and behaviour;

  • personal development and wellbeing; and

  • leadership and governance.

Inspectors will grade safeguarding as either ‘met’ or ‘not met’. Ofsted is using a five-point grading system to grade the other evaluation areas:

  • exceptional;

  • strong standard;

  • expected standard;

  • needs attention; and

  • urgent improvement.

Inspection reports are replaced by a School Report card. This is available in both paper and digital formats. It includes colour-coded grades for each evaluation area and a short narrative which explains why inspectors have given the grade. The Report Card also includes factual information about the school along with contextual information.

Inspection handbooks have been replaced by Inspection Toolkits and operating guides. Toolkits set out the standards for each evaluation area, including the standards for particular grades. The operating guides set out how inspectors should conduct the inspection.

The inspection methodology has been changed from ‘best fit’ to ‘secure fit’. This means that a school needs to demonstrate that it meets each of the standards in an evaluation area in order to be awarded the grade. Previously, there was some flexibility, meaning that inspectors used their professional judgement and could award a grade even when not every standard or condition had been met.

Inspectors will start by seeking evidence relating to the ‘Expected Standard’ for each evaluation area. If all of the standards for the ‘Expected Standard’ are met, inspectors would then look for evidence that the school meets the ‘Strong Standard’ for that evaluation area.

A school will be graded ‘Needs Attention’ when the expected standard of an evaluation area is not met because of weaknesses or inconsistencies in practice that have a negative impact on pupils in general or on a particular group of pupils.

Schools that are graded as ‘Urgent Improvement’ are placed in a category of concern under the Education Act 2005. A school will be graded ‘Urgent Improvement’ when they are evaluated to be failing overall or a failing a significant group of pupils and when there are serious, critical or systemic shortcomings in practice, policy or performance against professional/statutory or non-statutory guidance requirements.[2]

Ofsted has published evidence to support what is included in each inspection toolkit.[3] This indicates that each standard in an evaluation area links to specific professional standards, statutory and non-statutory guidance, and research evidence about effective practice (e.g. headteacher standards, teacher standards, SEND Code of Practice, Keeping Children Safe in Education, evidence from Ofsted inspections).

Inspectors will apply three key principles throughout the inspection. These principles guide how inspectors gather evidence and how they inspect. The principles are:

  1. The toolkit will help to gather evidence to celebrate the school’s strengths, validate leaders’ priorities and progress and highlight where improvement is needed. Inspectors will consider the extent to which pupils:

  • achieve (academically and personally);

  • belong (feel that they belong to and are valued as part of the school community so that they attend, behave and contribute positively to what the school offers; and

  • thrive (benefit from the right system, processes and levels of oversight so that they are kept safe and are able to flourish, whatever their background or individual needs);

  1. leadership, inclusion and whether there is a positive safeguarding culture are the key areas of focus when gathering evidence;

  2. The ‘expected standard’ in the evaluation areas in the toolkit is the starting point for planning the inspection.

Ofsted says that the new inspection methodology places greater emphasis on inspectors and leaders collaborating throughout the inspection. Inspectors will seek to understand leaders’ successes and their priorities for improvement. There will be regular reflection meetings with leaders throughout the inspection. Inspectors will consider whether leaders’ school self-evaluation aligns with their findings.

Inspectors will gather evidence through learning walks with leaders, by case sampling a small number of pupils, through talking to and observing pupils, including in social situations, through reviewing pupils work and listening to pupils read.[4] They will talk to pupils during learning walks, and through planned discussions with individuals or groups of pupils.

Inspectors will use the online staff survey to consider the views of staff. They will also speak to teachers and other staff during learning walks. They will meet staff or leaders best placed to discuss emerging themes.

School inspections will continue to last 2 days but Ofsted is adding an additional inspector to inspection teams for one day of the inspection. This is intended enable inspection teams to spend more time with schools leaders.

Ofsted is inviting schools to nominate somebody to act as nominee. This is an optional role, and is a role that already exists in FE inspections. Where nominated, the nominee will support planning, communication and ongoing engagement throughout the inspection.

When will the new inspections changes take place?

Ofsted will begin early years, state funded school, and FE and skills inspections under the new inspection arrangements from 10 November 2025. They plan to prioritise inspecting volunteers initially and say that they will not start full inspections of state funded schools before 1 December 2025.

Where can I find out more about Ofsted’s new arrangements?

NASUWT concerns

NASUWT has many concerns about the new inspection arrangements. These include:

Ofsted’s refusal to delay the new inspection arrangements

We have very serious concerns that the short timeframe for implementing the new inspection arrangements will not provide sufficient time for schools to understand the implications of the new arrangements and will not provide sufficient time for Ofsted inspectors to receive the training they will need to inspect fairly and effectively.

We have pressed both Ofsted and the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson, to delay the start of the new inspection arrangements so that schools have time to understand the new arrangements and any implications for their priorities and practices and for Ofsted inspectors to receive the training that they will need to implement the new arrangements consistently, fairly and appropriately.

To date, Ofsted and the Secretary of State have ignored our request.

Failure to address the concerns raised in the Coroner’s report following the suicide of the headteacher, Ruth Perry, and concerns and recommendations of the Independent wellbeing impact assessment of the revised inspection framework

This includes concerns about the independence of the inspection complaints process and concerns about the impact of Ofsted inspection on staff wellbeing in schools, particularly in light of the high stakes nature of inspection and the consequences of a poor inspection.

The Independent wellbeing impact assessment also includes the recommendation that Ofsted monitor closely the unintended consequences of the new inspection arrangements, including consequences of the definition of inclusion and the ‘Exceptional’ grading and that this monitoring be done in partnership with stakeholders.

NASUWT believes that identifying the unintended consequences of the new arrangements should take place outside of the high stakes inspection environment through trialling, testing and amending before inspections under the new arrangements commence. We also stress the need for this to done in partnership with workforce unions and other stakeholders.

Increased high-stakes accountability through the move to a ‘secure fit’ approach and changes to inspection grading

The change to a ‘secure fit’ methodology is likely to have huge implications for schools. It will become more difficult to achieve a grade as every standard in an evaluation area will need to be met in order to achieve the grade. In addition, the category ‘Strong Standard’ appears to fall between the former categories of ‘Good’ and ‘Outstanding’.

The changes are likely to mean that fewer schools achieve the ‘Strong Standard’ and that very few schools will achieve ‘Exceptional’. It is unlikely that parents and others outside of schools will recognise these nuances and leaders and teachers may come under extreme pressure to achieve Strong Standard or Exceptional.

Increased SENCO workload and adverse impacts on SENCO roles, responsibilities and working conditions

We have particular concerns about the impact that the new arrangements will have on the role, responsibilities and working conditions of SENCOs. The operational guide makes it clear that inspectors should meet with the SENCO and that the SENCO is likely to accompany inspectors on learning walks that focus on inclusion.

The evaluation area for inclusion also includes the standard: ‘a qualified SENCO is empowered through their leadership status within the school to lead whole school improvement for pupils with SEND (which reflects what is set out in the SEND Code of Practice).

Our SEND survey finds that two thirds of secondary SENCOs and just under a third of primary SENCOs are not senior leaders and have limited scope to influence decision making. Also, most primary SENCOs have multiple senior leadership responsibilities, limiting the time that they can allocate to the SENCO role.

The overwhelming majority of SENCOs do not have sufficient time to fulfil their role and the pressures on them, including those arising because of difficulties obtaining specialist external support and school budget cuts, including cuts to support staff posts, mean that they struggle to fulfil the strategic aspects of their role.

The new inspection arrangements are likely to place greater expectations on SENCOs without acknowledging the challenges that they and their schools face.

Absence of teacher voice

We are concerned about the lack of teacher voice in the new inspection arrangements which are heavily focused on leadership. While inspectors will look at responses to the staff survey, there appear to be few other opportunities for teachers to raise issues or concerns about things that affect them. In practice, if issues such as workload burdens, high levels of stress and the relevance and quality of professional learning are not mentioned in responses to the staff survey, inspectors are only likely to hear leaders’ perspectives on such issues.

Demands of and pressures on school leaders and teachers

The new arrangements place significant demands on school leaders.

While Ofsted refers to inspections being collaborative and undertaken with leaders, in reality it means that leaders are under much greater scrutiny. Further, in each evaluation area, the focus is on leadership. This is likely to have implications for the grading of the Leadership and Governance evaluation area.

While we welcome the increased emphasis on inclusion, this reflects a significant shift in inspection priorities and focus. Combined with curriculum, assessment and accountability systems that have not supported or valued inclusive practice, many schools will be refocusing their improvement plans and priorities to pay greater attention to inclusion.

This has the potential to place leaders under a double bind - be penalised for not moving quickly enough on inclusion, or be penalised for placing workload demands on teachers and other staff in order to implement inclusion policies and practices. We are extremely concerned that this will impact adversely on the workload and wellbeing of both leaders and teachers.

The inspection toolkit being used as a check list and the school’s self-evaluation framework

We are extremely concerned that schools will use the toolkit as both a checklist and their self-evaluation tool. This would have significant implications for workload.

Failure to hold all of those who contribute to school improvement to account

School inspections are focused on individual schools and while inspectors will look at a school’s context, the underlying assumption is that an accountaiblity system that seeks to drive improvement in individual schools will secure the changes needed to deliver high quality, inclusive education where every pupil can achieve, belong and thrive.

We are concerned that this ignores the responsibilities and actions that others need to take. In particular, the Government has a critical role to play through funding and wider education policies such as those relating to the curriculum and assessment. Also, decisions made by authorities and specialist services, including those made in response to funding pressures, impact on what support a school can or cannot access or provide.

We are concerned that the inspection arrangements will result in schools being held accountable for things that fall outside their control.

Pitting parents against schools

We are extremely concerned that Ofsted is pitting parents against teachers in order to justify its approach to inspection. In particular, a YouGov survey is being used to justify the five point grading scale under the new inspection arrangements. However, the YouGov survey did not ask parents what they wanted but gave them the choice of the proposed grading or the grades being used in March 2025.

Less focus on myth busting

Previous inspection materials have included clarifications or myth-busting about what Ofsted does and doesn’t want. Some of the clarifications have been integrated into the toolkit and operational guidance. However, other important statements have disappeared. We are concerned that this will result in some schools or MATs adopting unacceptable practices.

Failure to engage workforce unions in the inspection reform process

Ofsted has not had meaningful engagement with education workforce unions during the development of the inspection arrangements in contrast to previous reforms of the inspection arrangements. We did not have sight of inspection materials until they were finalised. We have significant concerns about this lack of transparency which is compounded by Ofsted’s selective reporting of responses to the formal consultation on the inspection proposals.

Concerns about inspection

Teachers and leaders who have concerns about an inspection or the way in which the requirements of inspection are interpreted by their school should seek advice and guidance from NASUWT. Support can be obtained by emailing the Member Support Team.

Performance tables and floor standards

NASUWT is concerned by the way in which the use of performance tables and ‘floor’ targets and standards constructed from a narrow range of pupil performance indicators in the current school accountability system in England fails to reflect the full contribution schools make to the educational progress and wider wellbeing of children and young people.

The operation of crude, data-based school standards and targets has created an environment across the education system that continues to skew the curriculum offered by schools and creates unacceptable workload pressures for teachers and school leaders.

NASUWT continues to press for the introduction of an accountability system that holds schools to account for the right things in the right ways, is supportive and developmental and that reflects more accurately the full extent of the contribution that schools make to the progress, achievement, wellbeing and future life chances of children and young people.

Footnotes
[1] Coroner’s report, Ruth Perry: Prevention of future deaths report. Available at: https://www.judiciary.uk/prevention-of-future-death-reports/ruth-perry-prevention-of-future-deaths-report/ (accessed 15 September 2025). The web page also includes a link to Ofsted’s response to the report.
[2] A school is placed in special measures if leadership and governance is judged to require Urgent Improvement AND another evaluation area is also judged to require Urgent Improvement. A school will be judged Requires Significant Improvement if an evaluation area other than Leadership and Governance is judged to require Urgent Improvement (i.e. the school is deemed to have the capacity to improve).
[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/renewed-education-inspection-framework-supporting-evidence-base/education-inspection-toolkits-statutory-and-non-statutory-guidance-professional-standards-and-relevant-research (accessed 15 September 2025).
[4] Initial case samples should be representative and include approximately six pupils. They should include a pupil with an EHCP, a pupil who has a disability, a looked-after child, a child known/previously known to social care, a child receiving pupil premium funding and a child from any other group that leaders have identified as relevant.