Ofsted鈥檚 use of the national average when grading schools on achievement could be 鈥渆xtremely unfair鈥 to those serving disadvantaged communities, leaders have warned. The watchdog has made inclusion a key focus of its reformed inspections. But leaders say the framework could penalise schools with high levels of poverty, special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) or large numbers of children who speak English as an additional language. The inspectorate stressed that inspectors consider a school鈥檚 context, using both data and information gathered on site to 鈥渇orm a holistic view of achievement鈥. But to reach the 鈥榚xpected standard鈥, inspectors must be satisfied that 鈥渙n the whole, pupils achieve well鈥. 鈥淭ypically, this will be reflected in their attainment and progress in national tests and examinations, which are broadly in line with national averages, including for disadvantaged pupils,鈥 the said. Paul Whiteman NAHT general secretary Paul Whiteman said the union was 鈥渧ery concerned鈥 this could 鈥渦nfairly mark down鈥 schools with larger proportions of disadvantaged pupils, or those with SEND. 鈥淭hese pupils may have low prior attainment, but nevertheless make considerable progress,鈥 he said. Averages also factor into grading decisions for 鈥榓ttendance and behaviour鈥, where to meet the expected standard, overall attendance must be 鈥渂roadly in line with national averages or shows an improving trend over time鈥. Andy Jordan, inspection and accountability specialist at leaders鈥 union ASCL, said Ofsted鈥檚 secure fit model and use of averages risk making it harder for schools in more deprived areas to attain middle or top grades. He said the new model appears to be 鈥渦nfairly judging schools for issues that go beyond the front gates鈥 and called for Ofsted to 鈥渞econsider their methodology and ensure they avoid penalising schools that are doing good work in tough circumstances鈥. What does the data show? Schools Week analysis of the first 62 routine, non-voluntary inspections under the new system shows around one in three received 鈥榥eeds attention鈥 for achievement 鈥 more than any other evaluation area. The 20 schools appear to be split across deprivation levels. Nine were 鈥渁bove鈥 or 鈥渨ell above鈥 average, four 鈥渃lose鈥, and seven 鈥渂elow鈥 or 鈥渨ell below鈥. The split was similar for free school meal eligibility, with five 鈥渃lose鈥, eight 鈥渁bove鈥 or 鈥渨ell above鈥, and seven 鈥渂elow鈥 or 鈥渨ell below鈥. But the sample is still small, and leaders remain concerned. Lack of 鈥榳riggle room鈥 Richard Sheriff, CEO of Red Kite Learning Trust, has been through two inspections under the new framework. He fears a school鈥檚 context 鈥渋s not influencing any of the grade鈥 and the approach 鈥渇eels extremely unfair鈥. One Red Kite school in Leeds was judged 鈥榥eeds attention鈥 for achievement. Inspectors acknowledged that many pupils joined part-way through schooling and the school supported them to catch up. But pupils 鈥渁chieve less well than could be expected鈥 in tests and exams. Sheriff said the local area has 鈥済enerations of 鈥 compound disadvantage and school non-attendance鈥. 鈥淟ast year just over 21 families lost a parent 鈥 It鈥檚 just profoundly different. 鈥淗ow on earth can you use a national average against a population that鈥檚 clearly in no way average? It鈥檚 just statistic nonsense.鈥 He warned that schools in similar areas risk slipping automatically into 鈥榥eeds attention鈥, while staff 鈥渟erving in these schools brilliantly are being underserved by a draconian and basically out-of-touch inspection.鈥 Context must be reflected Two E-ACT schools are also among those rated 鈥榥eeds attention鈥 for achievement 鈥 E-ACT Nechells Academy, a primary in Birmingham, and City Heights E-ACT Academy in Tulse Hill, south London. Both sit in areas of 鈥渨ell above average鈥 deprivation. At City Heights, 24 per cent of pupils receive SEN support, almost 6 per cent have an EHCP, and 61 per cent are eligible for free school meals (FSM). At Nechells, SEN support is above average at (18 per cent), while FSM is 71 per cent. CEO Tom Campbell said he welcomed Ofsted鈥檚 focus on attainment and progress, 鈥渂ut national averages don鈥檛 always reflect the context of many of our academies鈥. 鈥淪chools with high proportions of disadvantaged pupils, pupils with SEND, or high mobility can see headline figures affected by factors beyond the control of teaching and leadership,鈥 he said. He pointed to Nechells, which was praised by inspectors for improving outcomes for disadvantaged pupils, and phonics and multiplication. But several pupils joined in year 5, leaving too little time to 鈥済et them fully up to speed鈥 for SATs. 鈥淎s a result, the school was graded 鈥榥eeds attention鈥 for achievement.鈥 Campbell said he hoped this 鈥渢eething issue鈥 can be 鈥渋roned out, so judgments can fully reflect both attainment and progress in context.鈥 Oliver: Inspectors are looking at context One audience member raised similar concerns to Ofsted chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver, during a Q&A at BETT UK last month. 鈥淲e work within deprivation, and people come to us with very low reading ages,鈥 he said. 鈥淭he work we do with them is extraordinary, and the progress that they make is excellent鈥. Yet the school is 鈥渏udged against鈥 other schools including local grammars. Oliver responded that he was 鈥渨atching very carefully鈥 but 鈥渃an already see that there are schools with low achievement getting beyond 鈥榚xpected鈥, 鈥榮trong鈥 and 鈥榚xceptional鈥 grades鈥. 鈥淚 can tell that my inspectors are taking the context into account,鈥 he said. He said removal of headline grades means the system can show weakness in achievement while recognising excellence elsewhere. But Wolverhampton headteacher Philip Salisbury fears many parents will still judge schools closely on achievement and warned the system risks 鈥渟etting schools up to be either 鈥 inclusive or academic鈥. He also worries that schools could be deterred from admitting pupils who could dent results. Salisbury leads a primary where more than 55 per cent of pupils are eligible for free school meals. Around 80 per cent speak English as an additional language. 鈥淚f you are comparing across national averages, a school like us is always going to struggle,鈥 he said. 鈥淎chievement becomes the weakest-looking area, even when the provision could be strong.鈥 Education consultant Steve Wren said he also has 鈥渟ignificant concerns鈥 that the achievement toolkit 鈥渋s biased against鈥 schools working within more difficult contexts. 鈥淚t is self-evidently more challenging for schools with low prior attainment to have exam outcomes in line with national averages.鈥 Inclusion tsar welcomes raising outcomes But not all leaders have been critical. Wodensborough Ormiston Academy, whose trust is led by government inclusion tsar Tom Rees, has also been rated 鈥榥eeds attention鈥 for achievement, while achieving 鈥榚xpected standard鈥 in all other areas. Disadvantage and SEND levels at the secondary are 鈥渨ell above average鈥. Its report stated pupils鈥 outcomes in exams at the end of KS4 鈥渞emain below the national average鈥. Work to improve this, including for pupils facing barriers to learning, 鈥渋s beginning to show some positive improvements鈥, but 鈥渢oo many pupils still do not achieve as well as they should鈥. Rees said: 鈥淲e are proud of the improvement at Wodensborough in recent years. 鈥淲e welcome the greater emphasis this new inspection framework places on inclusion, alongside a continued focus on raising outcomes.鈥 Averages 鈥榡ust one part of picture鈥 An Ofsted spokesperson said: 鈥淧upil achievement is at the heart of our report card because outcomes matter. 鈥淚t is vital that every child is provided with the tools they need to thrive, no matter their local context. To be truly inclusive means setting high standards for all children.鈥 Performance in national tests and exams, and how this compares to national averages in the IDSR, 鈥渋s just one part of the rich picture of achievement in a school鈥, they added. 鈥淚nspectors use a range of data, including national averages for disadvantaged pupils, to understand achievement better. In forming grading decisions, they discuss each school’s context in detail with school leaders.鈥 Some leaders have suggested that the use of averages means half of schools would not be able to meet the expected standard. But Ofsted has said that won鈥檛 be the case. For each achievement measure, schools are placed in one of three bandings depending on where they sit on a national distribution range. Performance near the average range is banded 鈥渃lose to average鈥, while others will be 鈥渁bove鈥 or 鈥渂elow鈥. Ofsted said inspectors 鈥渘ever look at a single measure for a single year in isolation鈥, and instead look at data over multiple years and measures to 鈥渋dentify consistent and comprehensive patterns鈥 and smooth out year-on-year variations.
Dan 17 February 2026 This issue also runs through attendance and EYFS. As a principal of a 2-16 academy we had a limited judgement in EYFS at expected standard due to strong bullet point 5. Essentially students must be generally be above GLD – this is ludicrous as we serve on of the most deprived communities in the country and children join us way below expected at 2 years old. Attendance is also an issue – no disadvantaged serving school is likely to get strength. Achievement was the only needs attention for us due ks2 data – again disadvantaging both schools in challenging circumstances but also 2-16 schools. 95 % of our students do their whole education with us and achieve well at ks4. It seems mad to measure us halfway on that journey and find fault – primaries are not measured on ks1 data – nor are secondaries measured on Y9.
dean 17 February 2026 There is an assumption here that school achievement gradings are based on national averages for raw attainment. This is wrong. Far fewer than 50% of schools have attainment statistically higher than the national average. This is because schools are banded not ranked against the national benchmarks and statistical tests measure if any differences from national averages are meaningful. Achievement in public exams is based on attainment and progress. Progress measures compare students against others nationally with similar starting points. Below average attainment but close to average progress may not be a concern, especially if students on entry have low starting points. Persistent statistically below average progress is a concern. Single year dips or spikes in achievement data are cautiously handled in favour of looking at 3-year trends. Achievement over time is more important than achievement at one point in time. Leaders who have a firm understanding of what the data does and doesn鈥檛 say about their schools are in a better position to explain the school鈥檚 context with confidence and link this to achievement.