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

Ofsted’s new inspection arrangements

Background to the current inspection arrangements

Ofsted introduced its renewed inspection arrangements on 10 November 2025. Further revisions to the school inspection toolkit, operating guide and inspection information apply from September 2026.

This guidance explains how the inspection arrangements operate, the changes applying from September 2026 and the implications for teachers and school leaders. It also sets out NASUWT’s concerns and the steps members can take where inspection creates inappropriate workload, pressure or professional risk.

NASUWT continues to press for an inspection and accountability system which supports sustainable school improvement, protects staff wellbeing and takes proper account of each school’s context.

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 current 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Inspection handbooks have been replaced by Inspection Toolkits and operating guides.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.

Ofsted may identify a limited weakness even where the school meets the expected standard or a higher standard. The inspector may record this as a next step for improvement without reducing the grade.

A lower grade should only be given where the inspector concludes that one or more of the published requirements for the expected standard have not been met securely.

If a limited weakness is being used to justify a lower grade, leaders should ask the inspector to identify the relevant grading requirement and explain why the evidence shows that it has not 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.

An urgent improvement grade can lead to a school being placed in a statutory category of concern. From September 2026, the rules operate as follows:

  • A school will require significant improvement where leadership and governance is graded urgent improvement and no other evaluation area is graded urgent improvement.

  • Where another evaluation area is graded urgent improvement or safeguarding is not met, the outcome depends on leadership and governance.

  • If leadership and governance is not graded urgent improvement, the school will require significant improvement.

  • If leadership and governance is graded urgent improvement, inspectors must apply a leadership capacity test.

  • The school will be placed in special measures if one or more of the five specified leadership capacity indicators applies.

  • The school will require significant improvement if none of those five indicators applies.

A potential category of concern must be discussed with Ofsted’s national duty desk. The provisional decision is subject to moderation. Special measures also requires the agreement of His Majesty’s Chief Inspector.

School leader members should seek immediate NASUWT advice if inspectors indicate that an urgent improvement grade or category of concern is being considered.

Ofsted has published evidence to support what is included in each inspection toolkit.[1] 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 its inspection methodology places greater emphasis on inspectors and leaders collaborating throughout the inspection than was the case under previous frameworks. 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. They will talk to pupils during learning walks, and through planned discussions with individuals or groups of pupils.

Inspectors do not grade individual lessons. Members should not be asked to produce special lessons, plans or resources for inspection.

Inspectors will not review schools’ internal performance data. They may discuss how leaders use internal assessment information and the decisions arising from it. Schools should not produce additional internal data solely for Ofsted.

Members should only be expected to answer questions that fall within their role and professional knowledge.

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 do the revised inspection arrangements apply?

Ofsted introduced the renewed inspection arrangements on 10 November 2025. Revised versions of the school inspection toolkit, operating guide and inspection information will apply from September 2026.

The September 2026 update makes a number of existing requirements more explicit. It also introduces additional inspection prompts and clarifies circumstances which may lead to an urgent improvement grade.

Where can I find the current inspection documents?

The following documents apply to state-funded school inspections from September 2026.

The following documents provide further information about specific aspects of the September changes.

What changes from September 2026?

Ofsted describes the September 2026 changes as additional or updated wording intended to provide clarity. Some changes have implications that are more significant because they introduce new inspection prompts or create a clearer route to an urgent improvement grade.

Inclusion strategies

The September 2026 toolkit says inspectors will consider whether leaders and governors have developed and published an inclusion strategy which explains how the school’s overall funding and Inclusive Mainstream Fund allocation will be used.

The Department for Education requires funded schools to publish their first strategy by 31 December 2026. The Ofsted toolkit applies from September 2026. NASUWT believes a school should not be criticised during the autumn term for failing to publish a strategy before the Department for Education deadline.

The inclusion strategy is currently a condition of the Inclusive Mainstream Fund. The wider proposed legal duty and National Inclusion Standards have yet to be finalised.

A meaningful strategy should be developed through consultation with teachers, SENCOs, other affected staff and recognised trade unions. It should include consideration of the following:

  • staffing and workforce capacity;

  • additional working time;

  • cover and training requirements;

  • the effect on teachers and support staff;

  • existing activity which will be reduced or stopped;

  • funding and sustainability; and

  • dependence on health, local authority and specialist services.

Schools should use existing evidence wherever possible.

Concepts such as belonging, engagement and wellbeing should not automatically become new scores or tracking systems.

Any new data collection should have a clear purpose and should be achievable within normal working hours.

Schools and staff should not be held responsible for the failure or limited capacity of services outside their control.

Further advice and information on the government’s plans for SEND and their implications can be found on our Special and Additional Educational Needs page.

Achievement and similar schools

From September 2026, inspectors will consider pupils’ attainment and progress over time in comparison with national averages and similar schools.

The similar schools information will be included in the Inspection Data Summary Report and is intended to be a starting point for discussion.

The comparison does not create a separate grading threshold. The expected standard grade descriptor continues to refer to outcomes being broadly in line with national averages. It does not refer to the similar schools average.

The word ‘typically’ within the grade descriptor leaves room for professional judgement.

A strong comparison with similar schools may help inspectors understand why performance below the national average remains consistent with the expected standard when considered alongside pupils’ starting points, progress and evidence gathered in the school.

Ofsted should be able to explain clearly how the contextual comparison affected that judgement.

The similar schools model has significant limitations. Matched schools are not identical.

The Department for Education says the model explains around four fifths of variation in secondary attainment and around one third at primary level. Schools should challenge any mechanical or determinative use of the comparison.

Inspectors should also take account of small cohorts, changing cohorts, pupils with SEND, disadvantaged pupils and gaps in published data. Published information does not represent the achievement of every pupil or every year group.

Attendance and pupils with SEND

The revised toolkit expressly recognises that overall attendance and persistent absence may be affected where pupils have experienced disrupted education or have SEND which affects attendance.

Inspectors should focus on the impact of the school’s work from the pupils’ starting points. They should consider disability-related absence, medical advice, mental health needs, reasonable adjustments and delays in accessing external services.

This wording should protect schools against a mechanical judgement based on headline attendance.

The reference to improving attendance rapidly may still generate inappropriate pressure.

Schools should not set targets that conflict with a pupil’s welfare, reasonable adjustments or medical advice.

Members should raise concerns where attendance action places inappropriate pressure on pupils with SEND or creates excessive casework, recording or monitoring requirements.

Attendance recording

The operating guide requires inspectors to challenge unusual attendance patterns, inaccurate codes, inappropriate part-time timetables and changes to registration practices that appear designed to improve attendance figures.

From September 2026, Ofsted makes the grading consequence more explicit. Where an inspector reasonably believes inaccurate recording, gaming or inappropriate use of part-time timetables is taking place, leadership and governance is likely to be graded urgent improvement.

This is a serious consequence. Inspectors should distinguish between the following:

  • a correctable administrative error;

  • a reasonable dispute about the interpretation of a code;

  • weak systems or training; and

  • deliberate manipulation.

An isolated coding mistake should not be treated as evidence of systemic misconduct.

Schools should be given a fair opportunity to explain unusual patterns and correct factual errors.

Part-time timetables must be lawful, time limited and regularly reviewed. Where they are used for pupils with medical needs or SEND, the school should retain its ordinary records of the reasons, consultation, support and return to full-time education. Ofsted-specific records should not be created.

Off-rolling

The revised guide gives a fuller definition of off-rolling. It focuses on decisions made in the school’s interests instead of the pupil’s interests. It includes additional examples and requires inspectors to contact the national duty desk where off-rolling is found or seriously suspected.

Managed moves, off-site direction, dual registration, alternative provision and properly administered permanent exclusion are not automatically off-rolling. High pupil movement is not sufficient evidence.

Inspectors should consider the pupil’s interests, consultation with the pupil and family, the reasons for the decision, statutory procedures and review arrangements. They should also take account of provision and services available locally.

Schools should retain clear ordinary records of important pupil-placement decisions. Defensive documentation for every move should not be required.

Mobile-phone policies

The previous toolkit already referred to expectations about mobile phones. The September 2026 version gives the issue greater prominence.

Inspectors will consider whether leaders review mobile-phone policies and work with pupils and parents to communicate expectations.

The toolkit does not prescribe a total ban or any other particular policy.

A school should be able to explain why its approach is appropriate for its pupils and context.

Any policy should take account of the following:

  • staff workload and enforceability;

  • safety and safeguarding;

  • consistency and proportionality;

  • consultation with staff, pupils and parents; and

  • reasonable adjustments for pupils with SEND, medical needs or communication needs.

Inspectors should judge the clarity, implementation and effect of the policy. Adoption of a preferred national model has no separate grading status.

NASUWT has produced detailed advice and guidance on negotiating an effective policy on mobile phones and other connected devices.

Bullying, discrimination and harassment

The revised documents make policy review more explicit and extend the records schools must provide to include discriminatory or prejudiced behaviour based on religion or belief.

The leadership and governance urgent improvement descriptor has also been broadened. The current wording refers to bullying, unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation of staff going unnoticed or unchallenged. The September 2026 wording removes the reference to staff. It therefore appears to cover treatment across the school community.

The occurrence of an incident does not show that leaders tolerate it.

Inspectors should consider whether pupils and staff have confidence to report concerns, whether action is timely and effective, whether incidents recur and whether affected people receive appropriate support.

A school with trusted reporting arrangements may record more incidents.

High reporting levels can be evidence that pupils and staff feel able to speak. Inspectors should not infer poor practice from raw incident numbers.

Schools should maintain proportionate records while protecting confidentiality. New inspection-specific trackers should not be required.

Enrichment

The September 2026 toolkit tells inspectors to consider whether enrichment is purposeful and varied while having regard to the Enrichment Framework where applicable.

The framework is non-statutory.

It contains eight benchmarks, case studies and optional self-assessment and action-planning tools.

The case studies are examples and do not establish minimum inspection requirements.

The framework is not intended to be used in inspections.

Schools should not be expected to complete every framework tool, provide activity in every possible form or create a new participation dashboard for inspection.

Enrichment must be planned within available staffing, funding and facilities. Teachers and support staff should not be expected to provide clubs, trips or other activities through unpaid voluntary work.

Directed time, contractual requirements, remuneration, time off in lieu, workload and health and safety must be addressed.

Inspectors should consider access for disadvantaged pupils and pupils with SEND while recognising that participation and suitable forms of enrichment will vary according to pupils’ needs and circumstances.

Further advice and guidance from NASUWT on the Enrichment Framework is available on our Enrichment Framework for Schools and Sixth-form Colleges page.

Other changes

The September 2026 update also makes additional matters more explicit. These include the following:

  • whole-school safeguarding responsibility;

  • support for pupils with medical conditions;

  • allergy safety;

  • records concerning disqualification under the Childcare Act 2006;

  • the role of the designated teacher;

  • personal education plans and virtual school heads;

  • inclusion bases and curriculum adaptation;

  • support for pupils with education, health and care plans to attend and behave; and

  • safe sleeping and food preparation in early years.

Inspectors may need to discuss these matters with staff who hold the relevant responsibilities.

Inspection should not result in responsibilities being transferred informally to teachers, SENCOs or support staff without time, training and appropriate recognition.

NASUWT concerns

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

Failure to allow sufficient implementation time

NASUWT had serious concerns about the short period available before the renewed inspection framework was introduced in November 2025.

Ofsted published the September 2026 revisions in June 2026. The Department for Education published detailed inclusion strategy guidance in August 2026. This gives schools and inspectors a further short implementation period during which they must understand changes with significant grading, workload and equality implications.

NASUWT remains concerned that changes are being introduced before they have been tested fully and before their unintended consequences have been evaluated with teachers, leaders and workforce unions.

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 its revised inspection arrangements, including consequences of the definition of inclusion and the ‘Exceptional’ grading and that this monitoring be done in partnership with stakeholders.

NASUWT was clear that identifying the unintended consequences of the new arrangements should have taken place outside of the high stakes inspection environment through trialling, testing and amending before inspections under the new arrangements commenced. We also stressed 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.

The September 2026 guidance says that minor inconsistencies may lead to next steps without lowering a grade. It also allows next steps to be identified where the school is graded at the expected standard or above.

NASUWT is concerned that these next steps may become hidden additional standards and generate work beyond the published grading requirements.

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.

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

The inclusion strategy requirement may place further pressure on SENCOs.

The strategy involves identifying barriers, consulting stakeholders, selecting activities, planning expenditure, supporting implementation and evaluating impact.

The requirement should not be treated as an individual SENCO responsibility.

Schools should consult SENCOs, teachers, other affected staff and recognised trade unions.

They should identify the time, staffing, training and resources required.

The strategy should also make clear which work would be reduced or stopped to create the necessary capacity.

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 current 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 September 2026 additions extend this double bind.

Schools may feel pressure to produce new data about inclusion, attendance, bullying and enrichment. They may also feel pressure to adopt preferred policies or expand provision without additional staffing.

Ofsted should make clear that schools are not expected to create inspection-specific evidence or introduce monitoring systems that lack a clear educational purpose.

Inspectors should examine whether proposed action is realistic, funded and sustainable within the school’s workforce capacity.

The inspection toolkit being used as a checklist 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.

The September 2026 changes increase this risk because the toolkit now refers to an inclusion strategy, similar schools data, mobile-phone policy review and the Enrichment Framework.

Evidence-gathering prompts do not all have the same status as grading standards.

Inspectors should identify the published grading standard which supports any proposed grade.

Schools should not use every prompt as a compliance checklist.

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 accountablity 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.

This concern is particularly important in relation to SEND-related attendance and inclusion.

Schools may depend on educational psychology, speech and language therapy, mental health support, social care, local-authority action and suitable specialist provision.

Inspectors should distinguish between action within the school’s control and outcomes that depend on other agencies.

Inspection findings should identify external constraints where these have limited what the school can reasonably achieve.

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 has been used to justify the five point grading scale introduced in the current 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 does not 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.

NASUWT believes Ofsted should confirm that inspection does not require the following:

  • Ofsted-specific lesson plans or teaching materials;

  • additional data created solely for inspection;

  • a particular format for school self-evaluation;

  • completion of every evidence-gathering prompt as a checklist;

  • grading of individual lessons or teachers;

  • a particular mobile-phone policy;

  • completion of all Enrichment Framework tools;

  • unpaid extracurricular work;

  • extensive documentation designed solely to demonstrate compliance;

  • teachers to answer for matters outside their role; and

  • schools to accept responsibility for the failure of external services.

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.

NASUWT is also concerned that the inclusion strategy requirement has been developed without an equivalent requirement for schools to consult recognised trade unions.

Teachers, SENCOs and support staff are expected to deliver the strategy and contribute to its evaluation. They should have a clear entitlement to shape any proposal that affects workload, staffing, roles or working practices.

Concerns about inspection

Teachers and leaders who have concerns about an inspection or the way their school is interpreting inspection requirements should seek NASUWT advice promptly.

Concerns should be raised with the lead inspector as early as possible. Inspectors must record concerns and the action taken in their evidence base.

The school can also contact a senior Ofsted leader during the inspection.

Members should keep a factual record of significant concerns. This may include the wording used, the evidence requested, the people present and the response from the inspector.

Members who need a reasonable adjustment during inspection should raise this with their employer as early as possible. Ofsted’s September operating guide requires inspectors to ask whether leaders or staff need reasonable adjustments or adaptations.

Where inspection is affecting a member’s health or wellbeing, the employer should take appropriate action under its health and safety responsibilities. Ofsted may pause an inspection in exceptional circumstances.

Support can be obtained from your Local Association, National Executive Member or 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.

The introduction of similar schools information may provide a more contextual comparison. However, national averages remain central to the achievement grade descriptors.

NASUWT is concerned that the additional comparison may increase data-led accountability and create new pressure to explain performance against several benchmarks.

Similar schools information should be used as a starting point for discussion and should not determine a grade mechanically.

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] 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).