Listen to this story Members can listen to an AI-generated audio version of this article. 1.0x Audio narration uses an AI-generated voice. 0:00 0:00 Become a member to listen to this article Subscribe Ofsted will not decouple the attendance and behaviour judgment areas and will instead introduce subheads for each in its report cards. But a union boss has claimed it will make it 鈥渕ore confusing鈥 and some schools will 鈥渃ontinue to be punished鈥. Martyn Oliver, the chief inspector, previously said he was “bothered” by the merging of attendance and behaviour and that it was something he was 鈥渨atching鈥. But Lee Owston, the watchdog鈥檚 national director for education, told the this week the two areas were 鈥渋ntrinsically linked鈥 and would not be separated. 鈥淲e do present two separate paragraphs [beneath ‘attendance and behaviour’] 鈥 and when parents read the report card, it鈥檚 clear what the nuances are,” he said. Adding subheads will ‘make things clearer’ Ofsted planned to 鈥渁dd subheadings beneath the grade to make that even clearer鈥 from September.聽But this would not be backdated for the hundreds of schools already inspected. 鈥淧oor behaviour affects all pupils. The vast majority who follow the rules shouldn鈥檛 have their learning affected by one or two disruptive pupils 鈥 poor attendance, like poor behaviour, is also disruptive.鈥 Pepe Di鈥橧asio, the general secretary of the leaders鈥 union ASCL, said failure to decouple the two areas 鈥渕eans schools with strong behaviour but contextual attendance challenges will continue to be punished鈥. Lee Owston 鈥淚ntroducing separate subheadings, but keeping one overall judgment, arguably makes things more confusing by giving the appearance that these are distinct evaluation areas. 鈥淲e do not think this is clear for parents and it certainly is not working well for schools. Ofsted needs to admit that there are major problems with the framework that cannot be solved with these kind of cosmetic changes.鈥 Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders鈥 union NAHT, said it was “good that Ofsted recognises grading attendance and behaviour within the same judgement is flawed”. “But creating separate paragraphs within the same overarching graded structure does not address that fundamental flaw. “Separate paragraphs won鈥檛 solve the problem when it鈥檚 the overall grade that gets published and that determines whether or not you are subject to additional monitoring.” Meanwhile NEU general secretary Daniel Kebede said subheadings “may make things clearer for parents” but that it is “disappointing” Ofsted has not “addressed the inherent issue with this evaluation area”. He said some schools “making significant progress in creating a respectful and positive learning environment can have their grade dragged down by raw attendance data” which does not adequately reflect context. The inspectorate will tweak its education inspection framework annually. Changes to be published in June Owston confirmed this year’s changes will be published in June, before they are rolled out in September. Some leaders feel their grade has been dragged down by issues affecting just one area. Others feel it unfairly penalises more inclusive schools, or those in deprived areas where attendance may be lower. To achieve the middle 鈥榚xpected standard鈥 grade for attendance and behaviour, overall attendance must be 鈥渂roadly in line with national averages or show an improving trend over time鈥, according to Ofsted鈥檚 inspection toolkit. Recent analysis of about 650 school report cards by the leaders鈥 union NAHT suggested schools with above-average disadvantage or an above-average proportion of pupils with SEND were more likely to be graded ‘needs attention’ for the judgment area. Owston also said grades for attendance and behaviour 鈥渁re far more positive than you might assume or have heard鈥. He said 鈥渁bout one in 10鈥 schools received 鈥榥eeds attention鈥 for that judgment area, adding that this grade 鈥渋sn鈥檛 a fail鈥. Ofsted to ‘clarify what evidence we consider’ Ofsted is due to publish its own analysis alongside management information next month. Owston said the changes announced in June would also include 鈥渃larifying exactly what evidence we do consider for the achievement evaluation area鈥. He said the evidence used by inspectors would not change. ASCL, the NAHT and school leaders have raised concerns about Ofsted鈥檚 use of words such as 鈥渂roadly鈥 and 鈥渢ypically鈥 in the inspection toolkit and how they were interpreted by inspectors. Asked by聽Schools Week聽whether Ofsted planned to clarify what these words meant, Owston said: 鈥淲e will be looking at our training to inspectors… [and] give examples of what 鈥榯ypically鈥 actually means in terms of an IDSR (inspection data summary report) and the broader evidence we collect around achievement.鈥 Owston also addressed concerns about school context not being taken into account, and claims that schools in less advantaged areas 鈥渁re being compared bluntly to national averages鈥. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 not true,鈥 he said. 鈥淲e recognise that pupils have different starting points, and we’re looking for them to progress from there. 鈥淭he expected standard refers to being typically broadly in line with national averages. But that does not mean that schools who are one percentage point below the national average are going to automatically be graded as 鈥榥eeds attention鈥.鈥 He said it was 鈥渘ot as simple as having a challenging context or not鈥, and that while inspectors factored in context, it 鈥渟hould never predetermine a grade鈥.