Almost quarter of a century ago, the New Labour government鈥檚 came into effect. Its themes are all very topical again, but it鈥檚 work that happened as a result of it that I鈥檇 like to draw the lessons from today. The best-value legislation meant that local authorities and other prescribed public bodies had to 鈥渕ake arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness鈥�. I was working in the civil legal advice sector then, and we needed to show that we – advice services of all shapes and sizes – were providing 鈥榖est value鈥� for the funding we were given or risk losing it. To facilitate that, I led a project to develop a balanced scorecard so that local authorities and other funders could see what they, communities and the general public were getting for their money. The stakes were high, and there was a lot of nervousness across the sector. I gathered all the relevant representative bodies together. For the best part of a year, a very small team of us worked with this bigger group to take the idea from a blank piece of paper to a balanced scorecard that almost everyone could sign up to. I am using the phrase 鈥榖est part鈥� in a very particular way. During that project, I often questioned what had become of my so-called career. I really hadn鈥檛 joined the legal advice profession to work on service measures; it鈥檚 the only job I鈥檝e done which I didn鈥檛 feel passionate about! In hindsight, however, the truth is that I鈥檝e had cause to use the knowledge from that exercise in every role I鈥檝e had since. The end result was commended as 鈥渋nnovative, intelligent and practical鈥� by the then Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, which provided a significant amount of funding for the advice sector. But rest easy.: this isn鈥檛 the point where I present you with a fully-fledged scorecard for schools. The work we did in the nineties, and for a different sector, would not in any way be relevant to schools today. Giving Ofsted more power is the opposite of what schools need What is relevant is the proof that a profession can come up with useful measures for itself if it is given the space to put its minds to it. We do not need regulators, inspectorates or funders telling us how to do it: we have the ability to craft a balanced scorecard ourselves, if that is what the times require. Giving the job to Ofsted runs counter to everything we鈥檝e learned over the past decade. Focusing more and more on one dimension of accountability is dangerous, and giving the inspectorate more power is the precise opposite of what the sector needs. It certainly isn鈥檛 the intelligent accountability championed by Professor Onora O鈥橬eill in the Reith Lectures of 2002, which are very much worth revisiting. Inspection, scrutiny and audit are only one part of the complex web of accountability public services are subjected to. Others include legal frameworks, professional accountability, organisational governance and culture, accountability to stakeholders, democratic and social accountability, and the media. They interlink, informing each other, but together they need to remain balanced and proportionate. Inspectors of course could look at an agreed published scorecard before arriving at the school; it might even help shape the focus of the inspection. But I鈥檝e not seen any argument justifying it being the output of inspection. This approach is deeply flawed in terms of the web of accountability and will not end well. If Ofsted don鈥檛 see that yet, it is possibly because they can鈥檛; they aren鈥檛 looking at the bigger picture. Their entire focus is inspection: that is the job they have been given to do. But there鈥檚 no reason for policy makers not to see it, and there鈥檚 still time for government to put its money where its mouth is and trust the profession to come up with a solution that really works for everyone.