Persistent school absence is one of the most significant ongoing impacts of the pandemic. The latest data shows that nearly 1 in 4 pupils were absent for 10% of school sessions in autumn 2022, nearly double the position in 2019. We remain very concerned about the effect this will have on children.
As the Department for Education (DfE) points out in its blog Why is school attendance so important and what are the risks of missing a day?, we know that the highest attendance rates are linked with the best outcomes at all key stages. Even missing small amounts of education can mean a child misses important sections of the curriculum and may therefore struggle to learn concepts that are built on what they missed.
And it’s not just about the academic opportunities. There’s value in the whole school experience. Learning with peers, enjoying sport and music, building relationships with adults beyond their families, and building friendships – these are the building blocks of well-being and a good life. School contributes so much to this.
It is therefore vital that children are in school as much as possible.
The role of schools
Schools have a vital role in improving attendance but not all factors influencing attendance are in their control. Because of this, there cannot be an arbitrary attendance percentage that all schools need to reach.
But many factors are within schools’ powers, and it is right to expect them to do all they reasonably can to achieve the highest possible attendance. If a school can demonstrate they are doing this, we will judge it favourably, even if its attendance numbers are lower than previously. Importantly, the school will need to demonstrate they are moving towards pre-pandemic levels of attendance or higher, even if they remain a distance away from their overall ambition. However, if a school is not doing all that can reasonably be expected, we may still have concerns.
The causes of absence
For schools to improve attendance, they need to understand the causes of absence, especially when persistent or severe.
For example, we have found that, in some cases, the impact of the pandemic has led to parents’ heightened anxieties about children attending school when ill, and this is impacting on pupils’ attendance, particularly in primary schools. While a degree of caution may be appropriate in some cases, as the Chief Medical Officer set out in his letter to school leaders on mild illness and school attendance:
“It will usually be appropriate for parents and carers to send their children to school with mild respiratory illnesses…a minor cough, runny nose or sore throat, [but not] if they have a temperature of 38°C or above.”
This message also needs to be reinforced too by the medical profession (especially GPs and pharmacies) helping parents get the right perspective and balance and avoid an overly risk-averse approach to keeping children out of school.
To aid decisions like these, schools need to have strong communication with parents and with pupils about the importance of attendance and tackling non-attendance. This includes building family relationships, pupil support, and repeated positively framed messages in assemblies and newsletters.
Further examples of good practice are provided in our report on securing good attendance and tackling persistent absence.
Resources
Our report on securing good attendance and tackling persistent absence includes examples of good practice for schools.
We have also published a webinar on attendance.
The Department for Education also provides support for schools to improve attendance, including through their:
There is also the Attendance Mentors programme which is delivered by the children’s charity Barnardo’s. The programme targets areas of the country with the highest levels of pupil absence. Trained mentors work directly with persistently and severely absent children and their families to identify barriers to attendance and support them back into school.
The NHS has also provided a guide for parents on when children maybe too ill for school.
We hope this blog underlines the importance of attendance, and how we will ensure we are fair to schools as they navigate this difficult challenge. And we hope that the support we signpost here will help schools to do all they can to ensure children are in school every day.
Find the webinar below:
]]>In this blog, we’ll consider safeguarding through the course of an inspection. We’ll explain some of the main activities we undertake and why. You’ll find lots of references to keeping children safe in education (KCSIE) too. That’s because it sets out the Department for Education’s (DfE) expectations, as the regulator, of a school’s safeguarding responsibilities.
Keeping children safe is an important part of all our work. As an organisation, we are always reviewing our approaches to inspection to make sure it’s as positive and effective as possible.
Schools tell us that discussions about safeguarding can sometimes feel quite pressurised during inspections. Some of the concerns about getting decisions right in this space are natural. It’s important to stress that inspectors will be looking at whether schools have made the right decisions to keep children safe, not looking to catch schools out on technicalities. We want the very best for children and protecting them from harm is paramount.
Before we consider the journey of inspection, it’s important to be clear what we mean by a ‘culture of safeguarding’. We’ve updated our definition to take account of what we know matters most. We expect all schools to have an open and positive culture around safeguarding that puts pupils’ interests first. We have provided further clarification in our handbook at paragraph 367 on what this means. Inspectors will consider the safeguarding culture that has been established in the school when making a judgement. Judgements will rarely rest on single issues. Inspectors will take into account a range of evidence so that they are able to evaluate the effectiveness of safeguarding arrangements.
Before the inspection
We contact schools the day before their inspection to set out the documents and information we’ll want to see when we are on site. We also have a longer conversation with the headteacher to talk about the school and plan the inspection.
In terms of safeguarding, we ask schools to start by providing some specific information before the inspection – this is outlined in paragraph 107 of the handbook:
We specifically ask schools to provide us with ‘brief details’ about the resolution of any referrals to the local authority. To clarify, these ‘brief details’ can just be drawn from local records – for example, what support was provided and by whom, or whether the case is ongoing or the situation is now being monitored.
The records that schools draw from should have enough detail for the inspector to be able to understand the overall concerns that have been identified and the support and help that is in place for children. The exact level of detail required is explained further in paragraph 68 of KCSIE, but they should:
During the inspection
Discussions about safeguarding are woven throughout the inspection and will be informed by the information and records provided. We explain more in our webinars and the handbook, but there are a few main activities:
The single central record
When we review the SCR, we’re checking against the minimum recording requirements as set out in paragraphs 268 to 272 of KCSIE. We might also ask questions about recruitment more widely, such as:
We typically carry out the check at the start of the inspection. We do it at the start so that if there are any minor safeguarding improvements that can be rectified during the inspection, schools have the opportunity to do so. We discuss further what we mean by minor safeguarding improvements below.
All that said, we’ll want to know that this document is well managed and that staff are suitable to be working with children. Sadly, some predatory people do try to join the staff of schools. The SCR is an important safety mechanism.
As our chief inspector has said before, there is no expectation that governors and trustees go through the SCR themselves. But governors and trustees are responsible for making sure that their school fulfils its statutory duties. It’s therefore important that governors and trustees have mechanisms in place to make sure that key safeguarding and safer recruitment duties are undertaken effectively.
Meeting with the designated safeguarding lead
Inspectors will meet with the designated safeguarding lead (DSL) to explore the culture of safeguarding more fully. We’ll specifically ask the DSL whether there have been any safeguarding incidents or allegations since the last inspection. If there have been, leaders should be able to demonstrate how they have used the guidance in KCSIE to respond appropriately. This is likely to involve information-sharing with the right agencies and people (more about this below).
We’ll often sample case files and discuss referrals in this meeting. As part of these discussions, we are assuring ourselves that any concerns are dealt with in a timely way. By that, we mean without any unnecessary delay. Timings will depend on local thresholds and guidance. We’ll explore how any referrals are made, what actions are taken and how things are resolved.
We’ll also ask about staff training and how leaders make sure that staff have the relevant knowledge and skills to safeguard children effectively. Above all, all staff should be aware of the indicators of abuse and know what to do if they have concerns about a child, no matter how minor those concerns might be. These expectations are set out fully in part 1 of KCSIE.
Information-sharing is a big part of effective safeguarding. Expectations are set out fully in KCSIE and you can find a useful guide to information sharing in Working together to safeguard children. We may discuss information-sharing further on inspection. Examples of the kind of questions we might ask are:
Topics of discussion with the DSL will vary from school to school depending on context. We’ll want to know that they understand their pupils’ needs and that the school acts on any concerns in a timely and effective way.
The meeting with the DSL is also an opportunity for us to be assured that this is a school that is reflective and receptive to challenge. By that, we mean that staff understand that keeping children safe is an ongoing endeavour and that there are always aspects of work that can be improved. If we spot something that perhaps does not quite look right, we’ll want to explore this and make sure the school’s systems keep children safe.
Discussions with staff and pupils
Inspectors will take lots of opportunities to talk to a range of stakeholders during different activities. We’ll prioritise talking to staff and pupils. From a staff perspective, we’ll be keen to know about their training and the actions they should take if they have a concern. We might explore the particular context and how any local issues are factored into training. For example, this might be about support for looked after children or unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children.
When speaking to pupils, we’ll want to know that they feel that there are people at the school who they can talk to if they have a concern, and who will act on those concerns. We’ll do this in an age-appropriate way. And we will not automatically assume that anything worrying that might come up is representative of all pupils’ views. If pupils do raise any worries, we’ll make sure we share these with the relevant staff in school and test out views with wider groups. We’ll be very careful not to jump to any conclusions and will be mindful of confidentiality.
That commitment to evaluating things proportionately extends to any concern that staff, parents or pupils might share in surveys too – we will weigh any matters carefully and speak with more people and explore wider evidence if we need to.
Making a judgement about safeguarding
Inspectors will reflect carefully on all of the evidence they gather to arrive at a judgement. We will judge safeguarding as effective or ineffective. In 99% of inspections that we undertook in the last academic year, we judged that safeguarding is effective.
Inspectors can also identify what we have described in the handbook as ‘minor safeguarding improvements.’ Examples might include administrative errors in paperwork or out-of-date policies.
Minor improvements, by definition, are those that do not have an immediate impact on the safety of pupils. Where it is possible to do so, we’ll want to be satisfied that the school will address them before the end of the inspection, although we understand that some things might reasonably take a little longer.
To reassure you, and as we explain in our webinars and training for inspectors, we know that schools cannot be everything to everyone. KCSIE is a vital tool for schools when it comes to safeguarding. Schools that are fulfilling their duties, by ensuring that they have systems in place to protect children from harm, will know they are doing all they can.
If we do judge safeguarding to be effective but that some minor improvements are required, that will not stop the school being judged good or outstanding.
In the rare circumstance that we judge a school to be inadequate due only to ineffective safeguarding arrangements, we will return for a monitoring inspection within 3 months from the publication of the report. This will broadly follow our other monitoring inspections but will focus on whether safeguarding is now effective. If the school has resolved the safeguarding concerns, its overall grade is likely to improve.
We understand that schools can be worried about how their safeguarding practices will be judged. However, Ofsted does not expect anything from schools beyond what is set out in KCSIE and our handbooks. If schools have an open and positive culture around safeguarding that puts pupils’ interests first, and if they are following the requirements set out in KCSIE, they (like the vast majority of schools) will be judged to have effective safeguarding.
Find out more
If you want to know more about our inspection of safeguarding you can find a dedicated recorded webinar on our YouTube channel. For more information about the SCR you can watch a KCSIE series from the DfE.
This blog supports our wider series of webinars for schools. School leaders, staff and governors have asked to hear from us directly. Our webinars and blogs aim to do exactly that.
We hope that our series of webinars and blogs will provide helpful clarifications.
Find the webinar below:
]]>With pupils and teachers now returning to school for a new academic year, this blog gives an overview of some of the recent changes to the school inspection handbook and the way we inspect schools.
In June 2023, we committed to making a number of changes to the way we inspect and report, including around safeguarding. We’ve now updated our guidance and reports to reflect these changes. We’ve also:
And we’ve made some updates to other areas, which this blog will outline.
We want to make sure that our judgements around safeguarding are well understood. To help with this, we have:
We have brought the references to schools having a safeguarding ‘culture’ into a single clear definition. It explains how we will evaluate this during an inspection. The definition makes clear that we expect all schools to have an open and positive culture around safeguarding that puts pupils’ interests first and protects them from serious harm.
We have also added more clarity on what we mean when we say that schools need to make minor safeguarding improvements. Minor improvements are only things that do not have an immediate impact on the safety of pupils. This could include administrative errors in paperwork or out-of-date policies.
Schools may be able to make minor safeguarding improvements before the end of their inspection. If they cannot, provided they have taken steps to resolve the issue, safeguarding can still be judged effective. If minor safeguarding improvements are identified, this will not stop a school being judged good or outstanding.
For the small number of schools judged inadequate due to ineffective safeguarding alone, we will return for a monitoring inspection within 3 months. The process will broadly follow other monitoring inspections but will focus on whether safeguarding is now effective. If the school has resolved the safeguarding concerns, its overall grade is likely to improve.
Throughout the handbook, we have clarified what we mean when we refer to leaders in maintained schools and academies. For the purpose of inspection, leaders are those responsible for making decisions about how the school operates, including decisions relating to behaviour and the curriculum. This always includes the headteacher and other senior staff. For an academy, it includes leaders at a trust level as well.
Where a school is part of a trust, the board of trustees is legally responsible for governance. Inspectors must, in most cases, speak to the chair and other trustees as well as trust employees. This can be done face-to-face or on a video call. Who else inspectors meet with will depend on the trust the academy is part of and will be decided following a discussion with leaders.
We have clarified who may participate in inspection activities, such as deep dives. For subject discussions, lesson visits and work scrutiny, middle leaders may be accompanied by a colleague, as long as this does not prevent them from participating fully in the discussion. Inspectors will also typically meet groups of pupils without school staff present, so that pupils can speak freely. There will also be the opportunity for staff to speak freely to inspectors without senior colleagues being in the room.
As the school year starts, attendance is particularly important so that all pupils benefit from the education and experiences that school provides. We have included new sections setting out how inspectors will evaluate attendance and behaviour, while recognising that the context in which schools operate has changed since the pandemic. We understand that schools cannot be everything to everyone, but we expect schools to do all they reasonably can to improve attendance and behaviour. We will look at a school’s capacity to improve and have defined what we mean by this.
We have made several other, smaller updates to our guidance that school leaders may want to know about. We have:
If you would like to learn more about these changes, we will be holding a school inspection update webinar on 11 September 2023. This forms part of a wider webinars for schools’ series for the autumn term, with further information and registration available via the link.
We wish you the very best for the year ahead and thank you for all your work.
]]>Alternative provider (AP) settings provide education for pupils with complex needs that can’t typically be met in mainstream schools. APs rightly differ from mainstream schools – they serve different purposes and have different objectives. When we inspect an AP, we know that we will see different curriculum approaches that reflect the specific needs of the pupils. And we know that we may see some very challenging behaviour.
Inspecting AP
When we inspect an AP, we see a variety of approaches depending on the setting’s core objectives. These range from short-term behaviour intervention packages to longer term and even permanent, full-time placements.
Even though an AP does not always look and sound like a mainstream school, we use the same inspection handbook (the education inspection framework (EIF)) to inspect it, to allow for comparability. The EIF is designed to be flexible and enables inspectors to take into account the specific context of individual settings.
This blog will explore how we use the EIF’s flexibilities to understand what makes an AP’s curriculum tick.
The EIF deliberately focuses on the quality of education and the importance of a high-quality curriculum. Our expectations of APs in this regard are no different to a mainstream school. We have high expectations for all pupils, and that includes those in AP.
We are currently seeing significant attention on the AP sector. This includes:
So, how do we go about inspecting an AP’s curriculum, when its complexity and diversity can make it look and feel very different to a mainstream school’s curriculum?
Understanding the AP’s core work and objectives
Our first step when inspecting an AP’s curriculum is to understand its core work and objectives.
Through the EIF, we recognise that APs are likely to have different objectives to mainstream schools, and, depending on the needs of their pupils, even to other APs. We know that an AP will focus on delivering the work that is central to achieving the AP’s core objectives, such as specific improvements in pupils’ attitudes, behaviour or attendance.
Understanding the AP’s core work and objectives is an essential part of the initial phone call between the lead inspector (LI) and the headteacher. During this call, the LI will ask the headteacher to describe and explain the AP’s core work and objectives. This is so that the LI can understand how the AP is set up to meet its pupils’ needs.
This conversation will necessarily involve a discussion about the AP’s curriculum.
Exploring an AP’s curriculum: what might a good or outstanding curriculum look like?
We have high aspirations for all pupils attending AP, and we expect APs to share those aspirations. This should be reflected in their curriculum.
But we know APs face a number of challenges when designing a curriculum, including:
The LI will want to understand the AP’s curriculum design and implementation in the context of the AP’s core work. They will ask the headteacher to talk through the curriculum in the call following notification. This is an opportunity for the headteacher to help us get under the bonnet of the AP’s curriculum – to describe how it connects with the AP’s core work and objectives. We want to ‘get’ what the AP is all about. This will include:
Agreeing the deep dives and arranging other inspection activities
Once the LI understands the curriculum, they will agree the areas for deep dives with leaders. The areas are likely to include national curriculum subjects and reading. They may include a curriculum area specific to the AP – one linked to its core work and objectives. They may be related to the four broad areas of SEND. Or they could be a combination of all of these. To allow for the necessary flexibility, there is no fixed number of deep dives in specialist settings and AP, but we generally aim to complete four in larger settings.
Because APs are complex, the LI will work closely with leaders to build an inspection plan that best enables the inspectors to explore and evaluate the curriculum.
We know that some pupils might be reluctant to speak with inspectors, while others will be eager to do so. We will talk to leaders about how best to communicate with, and meet, pupils.
Commissioning agreements and exploring the curriculum
As part of our curriculum discussions, we will look at commissioning agreements for pupils. We take the DfE’s alternative provision statutory guidance as the basis for what commissioning agreements should consist of and set out to achieve.
Inspectors are likely to sit down with leaders to look at a few commissioning agreements and related documentation. This will be a professional dialogue, where we ask leaders to walk us through a few ‘live’ placements. We often hear from AP leaders about their tailor-made and bespoke curriculum. This meeting is an opportunity for leaders to shine a light on their curriculum in action, and to showcase how they support their pupils.
Conclusion
Through the EIF, we focus on the quality of education – because we want all schools to have high aspirations for all of their pupils. AP is no different.
But we know that every AP is unique. And we know that, to inspect APs fairly and effectively, our inspectors should work collaboratively with leaders to understand their setting.
We will continue to provide ample opportunities for leaders to demonstrate how their curriculum supports individual pupils to reach their potential and, at the right time, move on to a positive, meaningful and successful next step.
We will also be hosting a webinar on our inspections of AP later in the autumn term as part of our series aimed at schools.
]]>In this blog, we explore the challenges of getting primary pupils back on track with reading. We look at:
On inspection, we’ve seen the difficulties that teachers are facing as they try to get all pupils back on track with reading.
Teachers tell us they are noticing that more pupils are further behind with reading. The wider the range of starting points, in any one class, also adds to the challenge.
The early reading evaluation criteria in our school inspection handbook helps us identify what successful schools are doing to support lower attaining pupils.
We have drawn up 5 guiding principles:
You can read more about the principles below or by clicking on each title in the above list. Below the principles, you will also find information on:
Reading is the gateway to learning. Pupils who struggle with the basic mechanics can quickly fall behind.
Being able to read accurately by age 6 has a strong correlation with future academic success. So, getting phonics teaching right is essential. That’s why our education inspection framework (EIF) places a strong emphasis on how well schools teach all pupils to read.
In September 2022, we added an evaluation criteria (paragraph 241) to our school inspection handbook. It reflects the importance of reading and emphasises that support should be given to all pupils.
If schools make sure that all pupils keep up with phonics from Reception and Year 1, only new arrivals may need to catch up.
The Department for Education (DfE)’s reading framework says:
‘Teachers should aim for all children to keep up with the school’s chosen phonics programme, ensuring teaching time is sufficient for the content to be taught within the timescales the programme sets out. Some children need extra support from the beginning.’
Successful schools are rigorous in making this possible. They do it in different ways including:
A few pupils (including some with SEND) may not be able to keep up and need to take smaller steps. This can help them make progress every day. Ongoing assessment should enable teachers to address this urgently.
Successful schools have a carefully thought-out catch-up plan for new pupils or for those who have fallen behind due to loss of schooling.
Making the best use of time in every phonics lesson, as well as finding sufficient time for extra teaching and practice, is crucial. This means that:
We often see pupils with insufficient knowledge being expected to attempt the same learning as their peers. Struggling to access the lesson wastes precious time and can threaten their self-confidence. Pupils who need more teaching and practice opportunities than their peers end up with less.
Successful schools use assessment to identify precise gaps in a pupil’s phonic knowledge. Extra daily teaching, as well as help during the phonics lesson itself, focuses on these gaps.
Other features of successful schools include:
Successful leaders choose a phonics programme that can achieve consistency across the school. Fidelity to the sequence of the school’s phonics programme is essential. Each programme introduces grapheme-phoneme correspondences and common exception words in a specific order. Following the sequence builds effectively and cumulatively on what has been taught before. It’s not possible to take short cuts.
While fidelity to the sequence is vital, not all schools, or classes within a school, can make the same choices about how to organise teaching. Organising teaching will depend on a range of factors. It will be affected by whether all pupils have kept up, pupils’ starting points, and the priority given to phonics teaching and extra catch-up sessions.
Some pupils have been left behind without sufficient teaching and practice. This does not mean that phonics does not work or that other strategies should be used. Phonics is the only way to accurately read an unfamiliar word. All pupils who struggle to read should be taught to do this. Pupils who have fallen behind need to be taught the phonic knowledge for the stage they are at. All pupils are on the same curriculum journey but at different stages (See principle 3.)
Leaders on inspection often raise the issue of fidelity to a phonics programme. Some tell us it’s difficult to balance this fidelity with making sure that pupils who need teaching at an earlier stage get it so that they can catch up quickly.
When leaders buy a scheme, it’s usually because they want consistency across the school and a curriculum designed by experts. It is understandable that they want to follow the programme with fidelity.
As we explored in principle 4, fidelity is important. The programme has been carefully sequenced to build on what has been taught before. It should be followed as intended – as long as pupils are keeping up. If pupils have different starting points, they will need to be taught the content from an earlier stage.
When we evaluate reading on inspection, we are interested to find out if the school’s curriculum is doing the job that leaders want it to. We use the early reading evaluation criteria in our school inspection handbook to find out how effectively the curriculum is being implemented and how well all pupils are learning to read. We pay particular attention to what the school is doing to help the lowest attaining pupils to catch up.
We don’t directly inspect fidelity to a phonics programme or the phonics programmes themselves. We do not have a preference about which phonics programme a school chooses. The DfE has a list of suitable programmes which have been validated but following one of these is not mandatory. What is important is that schools teach all pupils to read fluently.
Here are some good examples of how schools working in different contexts have made decisions so that pupils can catch up quickly.
School 1 - In this two-form entry primary school, the same phonics content is taught to the whole class at the same time. Teachers spot those who need extra help straight away and provide that support during the lesson. Some pupils who need even more practice also have a daily session to consolidate what they’ve been taught. It’s the same content as the whole class session but may be broken down into smaller steps.
If new pupils are behind, they receive additional teaching at their stage from a teaching assistant with phonics expertise. The groups may include pupils from different classes and year groups. This takes place during phonics lesson time and in an additional sessions until pupils can join the whole class.
School 2 – In this two-form entry infant school, pupils throughout the school are organised in groups according to the stage they are at with phonics. Most pupils keep up with the expected pace of the programme. Groups sometimes include pupils from more than one year group who are at the same stage. Pupils who have fallen behind also receive daily catch-up teaching.
School 3 - In this small primary school with only two classes, leaders had to plan carefully because pupils in the same class have very different starting points. Pupils are grouped together by phonic stage rather than age. The teacher provides phonics teaching for each group separately while others are working independently to practise using knowledge they have learned previously. Pupils who are behind also receive additional practice each day.
School 4 – In this one-form entry primary school, phonics teaching is organised differently in some year groups than others. In Reception, the teacher delivers the same content to the whole class at once. The teacher and teaching assistant use ongoing assessment to spot children who need extra help during the lesson. They have also identified a group of children who regularly need a bit more time. These children are taken out of class each afternoon for a short ‘keep-up’ session.
Leaders have made this a priority and they select support staff from across the school who have the greatest phonics expertise to provide this teaching.
In Year 1, there are several new pupils who are at a much earlier stage. They cannot yet access the same content and so the teacher groups them together. The group carries out consolidation tasks while the others receive their daily phonics teaching. Then the teacher swaps over and teaches this group while the rest are practising what they have been taught. The small group also have another daily session of phonics.
There are a few pupils in Years 3 and 4 who are not reading accurately and automatically. New leaders have already put systems in place to make sure that all future pupils keep up. They have also made sure that phonics teaching continues for these pupils into key stage 2. This group of pupils are taught phonics during the second half of each English lesson by a teaching assistant with phonics expertise. The group takes part in the first part of each English lesson, which makes sure they hear age-appropriate books being read and benefit from the discussion to support their language comprehension.
These examples demonstrate that there is no single way to organise the teaching of phonics effectively. What matters most is that any pupils who fall behind are able to catch up quickly. Applying the principles for helping pupils to catch up quickly, alongside consideration of the context, increases the likelihood of all pupils learning to read well as soon as they should.
]]>This article was originally published by Schools Week.
Recently we’ve noticed a rise in the number of complaints we receive from parents.
While parents should be able to complain to Ofsted if they’ve gone through their school’s internal process and not found a resolution, we know there’s a perception that this increase in complaints is prompting more snap inspections.
This year we received 14,900 complaints about schools, almost a 25 per cent increase on the previous year. Prior to the pandemic, we received around 10,300 complaints in 2019/20 and around 12,200 in 2018/19.
We take every complaint seriously and take action where required. However, I’d like to reassure everyone working in the sector that the need for immediate action is rare and has not increased alongside the number of complaints.
We always advise parents to go through their child’s school internal complaint process before making a complaint to Ofsted as we know the majority of problems can be solved this way. When a parent comes to us directly, we encourage them to approach the school first.
Two-thirds of complaints we receive are around safeguarding concerns, and around one-third of these complaints will contain an aspect of bullying. We carefully consider all of these concerns and decide if they need to be referred to another agency, whether that’s the local authority or the police.
A qualifying complaint for Ofsted would be something that raises an issue that affects the whole school. As the inspectorate, we do not have the power to investigate an individual complaint such as the provision of a child’s education, health and care plan or to reverse a school decision such as the exclusion of a child.
We never rush to inspect
The remaining qualifying complaints are usually concerned with the leadership and management of a school, pupils’ well-being or both. In these situations, we have a process whereby we examine the complaint carefully to see whether it merits any action. If we think the complaint does merit action, then we can decide to bring forward an inspection of the school or retain the information for the school’s next inspection.
This year, we have retained the information from around 1,530 complaints for the next scheduled school inspection so that the issues can be taken into account there.
There are of course times when we decide that a complaint is serious enough to necessitate an immediate inspection. This could be if we have concerns that the safety of the pupils or staff is at risk, or if there’s evidence to suggest a significant decline in standards or a breakdown in leadership.
However, just because we decide to inspect immediately or retain information about a complaint for the next inspection does not necessarily mean that there is a problem at the school. Inspectors approach things with an open mind.
This year, we made a decision to carry out 76 immediate inspections following complaints made to us, less than 1 per cent of all complaints closed in the year. This compares with 72 immediate inspections in 2019/20 and 71 in 2018/19. So, despite the rise in complaints, this has not led to a rise in snap inspections.
It’s really important that parents are able to contact us and raise concerns if they believe they have exhausted the school’s own systems.
But we want to be clear that we never rush to inspect without carefully considering whether this is the right and proportionate thing to do, in the interests of pupils.
]]>Initial teacher education (ITE), together with the early career framework and national professional qualifications form the ‘golden thread’ of teacher training and professional development. The aim is to develop high-quality teachers and leaders, which is vital for giving pupils the very best education. Our ITE inspections give an independent, external evaluation of a provider’s effectiveness and, where appropriate, highlight areas for improvement. We do this by assessing a range of evidence on inspection against the judgement criteria set out in our ITE framework and handbook.
We inspect all providers of teacher training that leads to early years teacher status or qualified teacher status. We also inspect ‘known’ providers of publicly funded further education and skills (FE and skills) ITE (see our blog to find out more about ‘known’ FE and skills ITE providers).
By August 2024, all registered ITE providers will have been inspected under the current ITE framework and handbook. This framework was introduced in September 2020 and intentionally raised the bar for ITE providers. Although the proportion of providers who received a judgement of good or outstanding has fallen from 100% in August 2020, to 94% in April 2023, we have seen many common strengths in those inspected so far.
Good practice
In the providers we inspected, we typically found high-quality curriculums which are ambitious and well-sequenced. They consider the expert knowledge, skills and professional behaviours needed by teachers at each phase and subject-level. In the best examples, providers consider the starting point and end-goals of their trainees within their curriculum design. In the early years, primary and secondary phases, the Core Content Framework is comprehensively taught and learnt.
Strong providers encourage their trainees to explore and reflect on pertinent research. This allows trainees to apply different learning theories to their teaching and critique what works well and what does not.
Additionally, we have seen rigorous quality assurance processes across different types and sizes of providers. The best examples use a range of quality assurance and improvement processes which are proportionate, purposeful, and bespoke. For example, processes that align with trainees’ experience and use trainee feedback to identify what is working well and what could be improved to inform future curriculum design.
In early years and primary ITE we have seen providers develop their trainees well to teach early reading, including systematic synthetic phonics. We have also seen trainees on secondary ITE routes prepared to support weaker readers, no matter what subject they are training to teach. An increasing number of providers are considering how best to prepare trainees to meet the needs of learners with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). For example, explicitly teaching a variety of strategies for adapting teaching to meet the needs of all pupils. Or seeking out special schools or placements at schools with high numbers of pupils with SEND, to allow trainees to see effective planning and teaching in practice. This has also been identified as a strength in early career framework inspections.
Areas for improvement
The areas in which some providers do well have also been identified as areas for improvement in the small number of providers who received a less than good judgement. Areas for improvement include:
Conclusion
Overall, through our ITE inspections we have been able to identify and celebrate a wealth of good practice. As we enter the final year of this inspection cycle, we will continue reflecting on ITE inspections and engaging with providers to share our insights. We will also share insights with the Department for Education so that they can be considered in their updates to the early career framework and core content framework.
]]>High-quality teachers are essential for giving all pupils the very best education. This is especially true for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, those with English as an additional language and those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). High-quality training and professional development are therefore vital at all stages of teachers and leaders’ careers: from initial teacher education (ITE) to support through the early career framework (ECF), and later development through national professional qualifications (NPQs).
These stages create a ‘golden thread’ of training and professional development for teachers. Our inspections of ECF and NPQ lead providers look at how they ensure the delivery of high-quality training and professional development through a national network of delivery partners.
While the phase one findings from our independent review of teachers’ professional development made clear that teachers and leaders are often unimpressed with the quality of their recent training and development, it found that ‘the ECF and NPQs represent a significant step forward’. Our inspections this term found this to be true.
Insights from the ECF inspections
Common good practice shared by all lead providers
We have now completed all 6 full inspections of ECF programmes delivered by lead providers. These are the first full inspections to take place under the new ECF and NPQ inspection framework, published in March 2022.
This year, all the lead providers we inspected received a good or outstanding grade. The majority of early career teachers (ECTs) we spoke to during these inspections had a positive experience of their training. They said it was providing them with the knowledge, understanding and skills needed to progress in teaching and to meet the needs of learners in their specific phases.
Some common features of good practice included:
While all lead provider curriculums were faithful to the ECF requirements, this did not result in identical training programmes. For example, we saw lead providers consider how they delivered the curriculum to provide high-quality, bespoke training. Some lead providers offered flexible online learning modules to supplement the training. This flexibility allowed mentors to pitch training to individual ECTs' learning needs, ultimately helping them to manage their workloads and support their well-being.
Mentors and training leads were essential for adapting such activities to account for what ECTs knew and could do already. Lead providers made sure that mentors received high-quality training that allowed them to tailor training appropriately and ensured they understood their role and responsibilities fully.
Mentors also understood their role in putting the generic statements of the ECF into context so that ECTs can apply them in their own settings and phases. Good facilitators and mentors brought the training to life. Examples included:
This contextualisation was happening in all lead providers, but some recognised that their provision had some gaps. For example, they may not have produced enough material to support some ECTs to understand how the training could apply in their specific phase. However, these providers had plans in place to rectify this. Providers are not expected to produce materials that exemplify every setting, phase and subject. But the best providers encouraged ECTs to be professionally reflective and helped them to look for ways to apply the training in the subject and phase they are teaching in.
The most successful providers clearly explained the rationale behind their curriculum design. This meant that ECTs understood that the programme would deliberately revisit and build on elements from their ITE year to deepen understanding. The ECF sets out core principles that ECTs will revisit throughout their teaching careers, such as adaptive teaching and managing behaviour. Where this was done well, we saw that ECTs could successfully build, deepen, and apply their knowledge over time.
Frequent good practice shared by many lead providers
Our framework explicitly considers teacher workload to help minimise any additional burden because we understand that many teachers are under significant pressure. We were encouraged to see that most lead providers took ECT workload very seriously and were prompt with support where needed. This was recognised and appreciated by the majority of ECTs.
We also saw training programmes preparing ECTs for the realities of teaching. Strong programmes developed ECTs’ resilience and confidence to form solid foundations for their teaching career.
ECF training delivered by lead providers is unique in that the programmes are delivered at a national scale through a network of delivery partners. Where this worked well, strong collaboration and communication enabled a cohesive approach to large-scale training delivery, with little evidence of regional differences.
But these networks also mean that it is essential to monitor quality of delivery regularly and rigorously. Our monitoring visits last year found that some lead providers needed to improve their quality assurance processes. This year’s inspections found that many had improved and only a minority of lead providers still need to further embed their quality assurance processes.
Forward look: what next?
We have been engaging closely with lead providers and their stakeholders throughout the development of the framework and the launch of full inspections. Lead providers tell us that they value our collaborative approach and the chance to have conversations about what great professional development for teachers looks like.
We will be inspecting all lead providers of NPQ programmes next year and will continue to engage with lead providers and other stakeholders throughout the process.
]]>The period between inspections is normally simple. However, there are currently several complicating factors. This blog will clarify when schools can expect their next inspection.
Normally:
However, the picture is currently a bit more complicated, for several reasons, including:
This means that the gaps between inspections may be different for your school.
The tables below will give you an indication of when your next inspection is likely to be.
Things to note
As has always been the case, the indications we give are only rough guides. We may inspect sooner if we need to (for example if we have concerns about a school). We also do not confirm exactly when a school will be inspected before we notify it officially.
Exceptions
The suggested timings under current inspection grades also do not apply to all schools. If your school falls into any of the following categories, please scroll down to find timings specific to you:
All other schools
If you do not fall into any of these categories, then the timing of your next inspection will be dependent on the date and grade you received at the last graded or ungraded inspection. Scroll down or click on a link below:
Schools with a good or outstanding judgement who have had an ungraded inspection that recommended a follow-up graded inspection
If your school’s most recent grade was good or outstanding, but you have since had an ungraded inspection that recommended a follow-up graded inspection, your next inspection will be:
Date of ungraded inspection | Likely date of next inspection |
Before September 2021 | Before September 2023 |
After September 2021 | Within 1 to 2 years of the ungraded inspection |
Schools with a good or outstanding judgement
If your school’s most recent grade was good or outstanding, and you either:
Then your next inspection will be:
Date of last inspection | Likely date of next inspection |
Before September 2018 | Before July 2024 |
Before April 2020 | Before September 2025 |
After April 2021 | Around 4 years after your last inspection |
Schools with a requires improvement judgement
Date of last inspection | Likely date of next inspection |
Before January 2020 | Before January 2024 |
Before April 2020 | Before January 2025 |
After April 2021 | Within 2.5 years after your last inspection |
Schools with an inadequate judgement
This does not include schools that receive a new URN because they convert to an academy or move to a trust. We treat these as new schools.
Date of last inspection | Likely date of next inspection |
Before April 2020 | Before July 2024 |
After April 2020 | Within 2.5 years after your last inspection |
Previously exempt schools
If your school was previously exempt from routine inspection, due to an outstanding grade, the timings will be different. Your next inspection will depend on when the inspection was that graded your school outstanding. In some cases, this may be the date its predecessor school was inspected.
Date of last inspection | Likely date of next inspection | Type of next inspection |
Before September 2011 | Before January 2024 | Graded |
September 2011 – July 2013 | Before January 2025 | Graded |
September 2013 – July 2015 | Before September 2025 | Graded |
September 2015 – July 2016 | Before January 2024 | Ungraded |
September 2016 – July 2018 | Before January 2025 | Ungraded |
September 2018 – March 2020 | By July 2025 | Ungraded |
Since April 2021 | Please refer to above tables based on your most recent grade | N/A |
New schools awaiting their first inspection
If you are a new school, your timings will also be different. This includes schools that have closed and opened with a new unique reference number (URN) but doesn’t include schools that were exempt because of a predecessor’s outstanding grade.
Date of school opening | Likely date of next inspection |
Before September 2020 | By the end of your 5th academic year |
After September 2020 | By the end of your 3rd academic year |
Schools that have undergone a significant change
All schools that have recently undergone a significant change (for example, having a new key stage added) may be inspected later than these timescales, to give time for these changes to bed in. However, the above guides may give you an indication.
]]>We're happy to invite you to hear directly from Ofsted in our summer webinars.
We wanted to start by thanking everyone who attended or watched our schools webinars in spring. So far this year we've hosted webinars looking at:
Each webinar is available on YouTube if you missed them. We also publish the slides from the sessions on our SlideShare channel.
This summer we'll be running webinars on:
In the first webinar, we'll look at how subject leaders are involved in Ofsted inspections. We'll also explore the evidence we gather on deep dives, the findings from our recent curriculum research reviews and share insights from our subject leads.
In the second, we'll discuss communication and language and what inspectors look at including the use of phonics and early reading. We'll explore what a reading deep dive is and share what we understand from inspection about the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on children’s learning and development.
Please sign up for either or both sessions at this link: https://bit.ly/OfstedWebinars.
Due to restrictions on our webinar platform, we can only accommodate 1,000 attendees per live event. We therefore recommend registering early to avoid disappointment. We'll also continue to publish the recordings of these sessions shortly after the event for those that are unable to attend.
]]>