The Association of School and College leaders has floated the idea of a 鈥3+ point scale鈥 for Ofsted judgments, as it called on the government and inspectorate to delay reforms to 2026. In its to Ofsted鈥檚 consultation on new report cards, the union warned moving to a five-point scale would leave 鈥渓eaders in a worse position than they are now鈥 and 鈥渦ndermine trust in the inspection process鈥. The watchdog proposes judging schools on a five-point grading system across up to 11 areas. The current system sees them given one of four grades across up to six areas. Union would prefer binary ‘met/not-met’ approach In its submission, ASCL said its 鈥減referred approach鈥 would be that schools are 鈥渋nspected against a binary model of whether they either meet or exceed, or don鈥檛 meet, statutory standards鈥. But it recognised such a model was 鈥渘ot possible within the current legislative framework, which requires Ofsted to identify schools and colleges that are causing concern鈥. The union acknowledged there was 鈥渘o indication that the government is intending to introduce legislation which would enable our preferred approach鈥. It would therefore 鈥渂e comfortable with a model based on what we have called a 鈥3+ point scale鈥”. 鈥淭his would enable Ofsted to meet its statutory requirements, and also enable the identification of exceptional practice, without the latter needed to be a graded judgement.鈥 Three-point grading system suggested The approach would 鈥渃onsist of three grades for each evaluation area 鈥 causing concern, attention needed and secure 鈥 with exemplary practice in any area optionally included as a narrative description”. Sir Martyn Oliver At ASCL鈥檚 conference earlier this month, Ofsted chief Sir Martyn Oliver lashed out at the 鈥渕ost vocal critics鈥 of his proposals, accusing them of seeking a 鈥渓ow-accountability system鈥. In its response, ASCL said it 鈥渟trongly鈥 refuted the suggestion 鈥渢hat individuals or organisations who don鈥檛 support the proposals in this consultation are coming from a position of ignorance or misunderstanding, or are hoping for less accountability”. 鈥淢any of us have studied these proposals carefully, and are committed to robust accountability for schools and colleges, but disagree that this approach is the right way to achieve that end.鈥 Reforms ‘nowhere near’ addressing weaknesses Ofsted鈥檚 reforms were prompted by a coroner鈥檚 ruling in late 2023 that an inspection contributed to the suicide of headteacher Ruth Perry. A review into Ofsted鈥檚 response by former chief inspector Dame Christine Gilbert found the watchdog appeared 鈥渄efensive and complacent鈥, urging it to move away 鈥渇rom the discourse that 鈥榠nspectors are never wrong鈥欌. But ASCL said it was 鈥渆xtremely disappointed that the proposals set out in this consultation go nowhere near addressing the serious weaknesses of the current system鈥 outlined in the inquest and Gilbert review. 鈥淲hile we strongly believe that the current system needs to change, we think the proposals set out here will leave school and college leaders in a worse position than they are now. 鈥淭hey do not address the acute concerns about mental health and wellbeing, will lead to perverse incentives in the system, and will not provide more reliable information for parents.鈥 Five-point system proposal ‘biggest concern’ ASCL raised 鈥減articular鈥 concerns that increasing the number of sub-judgment areas 鈥渨ill not reduce the stress and anxiety created by inspection”. 鈥淭his will create more grading, not less. This is contrary to Labour鈥檚 manifesto pledge and contrary to the messages from both the government and Ofsted in September 2024, when overall effectiveness judgements were removed.鈥 But the union鈥檚 鈥渂iggest concern is the proposed move from the current four-point grading scale to a five-point scale”. 鈥淔ar from addressing the concerns about school and college leaders鈥 wellbeing, this is likely to introduce even greater anxiety. We also fear it will mean less reliability between judgements: the proposed toolkits are wildly open to interpretation.鈥 Timeline ‘extremely problematic’ Ofsted has said that 鈥渘othing is set in stone鈥 and insisted it will listen to consultation responses. But the watchdog has also said it has 鈥渃lear plans to introduce changes in November鈥. ASCL said this timetable was 鈥渆xtremely problematic鈥, and breaks the DfE workload protocol, which demands a lead-in time of at least a year for significant accountability changes. The union pointed to the fact trials of the proposals are taking place at the same time as the consultation. This 鈥渞einforces the view of many of our members that these proposals are a fait accompli鈥. It called for the current transitional arrangements 鈥 under which schools are only graded on the existing four-point scale for sub-judgments alone 鈥 to be extended. This would 鈥済ive leaders time to prepare for the introduction of whatever the final approach looks like in September 2026鈥. Set out schools’ minimum requirements in law ASCL has also responded to the government鈥檚 separate consultation on accountability reform. It said that 鈥渨hile there are some positive aspects to this consultation, we do not think that, taken together with the Ofsted proposals, this will result in an intelligent accountability system鈥. 鈥淲e would like to have seen the government set out in the children鈥檚 wellbeing and schools bill the statutory requirements that all schools and colleges must meet, then to have built a proportionate, intelligent and useful system of accountability and support around that.鈥