For too long, the accountability tail has been wagging the education system dog, with a range of negative effects on children’s and staff鈥檚 experiences of school. The ongoing curriculum review and the imminent release of Ofsted鈥檚 consultation on the future of inspection offer hope of redress, but only if their outcomes can be made to align. It鈥檚 no secret that the reductive use of restricted data sets like EBacc and Progress 8 has been driving decisions that undermine not just inclusion but the ethical leadership it depends upon. Despite Ofsted鈥檚 assurances that its judgments are not based solely on these blunt metrics, there is significant evidence of their reliance on them, restricting and in many cases determining inspection outcomes. As a result, inspection has only reinforced the narrowing of our curriculum offer. An entirely focused on curriculum quality has been entirely blind to issues of breadth and appropriateness. There is an unequivocal link between the measures by which schools are judged and a decline in curriculum areas including creative arts and technology. This stands in direct opposition to the foundations necessary for growth and productivity in areas of strength and GDP generation. Worse, perhaps, research also shows the importance of these subjects on cognitive development, self-esteem and engagement. So the levers of accountability are effectively set against inclusion, belonging and wellbeing. This leaves school leaders facing significant tension between making curriculum decisions that best serve certain students and those which best serve their school鈥檚 accountability outcomes. What the sector does not want and does not need is yet another pendulum swing. A focus on strong knowledge and a core academic curriculum has empowered and united many across the profession. But introducing vocational breadth and reviewing which subjects are included in the EBacc does not need to diminish those gains. Slight tweaks to a flawed approach will not work Meanwhile, Progress 8 (P8) was a well-intentioned attempt to move away from the perverse incentives and unintended consequences of its predecessor, which valued some young people and some grades more than others. Today, it is deeply flawed, riddled with its own perverse incentives, entirely gameable, oblivious of context and driving exclusionary practice. When countless reports articulate a link between P8 outcomes and the quality of education judgement, 鈥榖alanced scorecard鈥� or not, it is clear that this measure has a disproportionate effect. This is exacerbated when extrapolated to small, often statistically invalid numbers of students. If renewed political focus on disadvantaged pupils uses this measure as its lens, there will be serious concerns about validity and impact. That鈥檚 why the Headteachers鈥� Roundtable is advocating for the alignment of a new inspection model and a new curriculum and assessment model with a new set of inclusive metrics from the Department for Education. Only by providing these tools will the government truly change the landscape and recognise and reward high-quality inclusive education. However, presenting slight tweaks to a flawed approach as a fait accompli will not work. Delivering this in a way that avoids more unintended consequences can only come from a collaborative look at contextual performance data and thorough trials of a range of models. Schools and trusts which serve their whole communities and retain and develop great teachers should be rewarded and encouraged. So we welcome the assurance that Ofsted will 鈥渞ecognise the context in which people work鈥�. We hope the impending consultation brings opportunity to engage fully with making that ambition compatible with high aspirations for all children. To that end, we will be arguing for the removal of single, reductive data points as defining levers for recognition and performance. We recognise a genuine opportunity here, and there is real appetite for change. Many from all corners of our profession will support the government in providing the vision and the leadership to ensure the two strands of reform it has set in train culminate in a unified accountability system that drives inclusion and collaboration. Delivering on that ambition must include rethinking the metrics that, along with Ofsted outcomes, drive parent choice and school leaders鈥� actions. And that is a golden opportunity for the government to shape the inclusive system it wants.
Peter Green 1 February 2025 Target the MAT CEOs. End their roles immediately. No pay offs. No protected pay. Nothing. Only option is a back to teaching in the mainstream with a full and balanced timetable of different Key Stages at the secondary level. How MATs can say they are part of the community when they 鈥榬elieve鈥� the taxpayer of inordinate amounts of money not only for their own salary, but the non-teaching team around them is mind blowing.
Tom 2 February 2025 Great sense spoken here. The only question I’d have is around baking in recognition of “developing and retaining teachers” – I don’t have anything concrete on this but this must be vulnerable to a huge array of local contextual factors AND school specific factors (e.g., no opportunity for progression).