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 has defied calls to reinspect hundreds of schools already visited under its new framework once measures to better understand local context are introduced. The watchdog announced this week that, from September, as well as comparing a school鈥檚 performance to national averages, inspectors will also consider the performance of 鈥渟imilar schools鈥. It follows growing concern among school leaders that Ofsted鈥檚 new framework penalises schools with poorer cohorts because of its focus on attainment and use of national averages. Those concerns deepened when Ofsted acknowledged this week the 鈥渞elationship鈥 between disadvantage and performance against its 鈥榓chievement鈥 judgment. Its analysis of more than 900 inspections conducted since November revealed schools with above-average free school meals rates are almost three times as likely as those with below-average levels to be graded 鈥榥eeds attention鈥 or 鈥榰rgent improvement鈥 for achievement. Schools Week analysis of further data published by Ofsted on Wednesday suggested a similar pattern for attendance and behaviour 鈥 which also uses national averages to assess school performance. Almost one-quarter (24 per cent) of schools in the top quintile 鈥 those with highest deprivation 鈥 failed to meet the 鈥榚xpected standard鈥 for attendance and behaviour. This compared to just 5 per cent of those in the bottom quintile. Ofsted has defended its framework, pointing out that 57 per cent of schools with an above-average proportion of FSM eligibility had been graded 鈥榚xpected standard鈥 or higher for achievement. The watchdog also said that, as part of the inspection process, inspectors compared the performance of disadvantaged pupils to the national average for the same cohort. 鈥楽imilar schools鈥 measure It has now set out plans to add a new 鈥渟imilar schools鈥 measure to the information that inspectors review, meaning they will take into account the performance of schools in similar contexts from September. Richard Sheriff, a former academy trust CEO and ASCL council member, welcomed news that the inspectorate has 鈥渢aken seriously鈥 concerns he and other leaders have long raised. But he added: 鈥淵ou鈥檙e already a year into using the inspection framework, and these things should have been done from the start.鈥 He said he feared for the impact on leaders 鈥渁dversely affected鈥 who had either already been inspected or are due to be inspected before the similar schools model comes into force. The new framework 鈥渇rom the get-go was fundamentally unfair in how it treated schools serving disadvantaged communities鈥, he added. He called on Ofsted to allow a senior HMI to 鈥渓ook again鈥 at these schools. Even if this only led to 鈥渁 subtle change 鈥 it might be very important for the school,鈥 he said. Jonny Uttley, another former CEO and visiting fellow at the Centre for Young Lives, said it was 鈥渧ery clear that the new Ofsted framework has punished schools serving more disadvantaged communities, because the approach to judging achievement has been far too blunt. 鈥淭his is something that Ofsted was warned about long before they began inspecting and it is a shame these warnings were ignored.鈥 He too questioned what the change means for schools 鈥渄owngraded on achievement this year鈥. No reinspections Despite the calls from leaders, however, Ofsted said schools will not be reinspected. The watchdog said inspectors 鈥渦se national averages cautiously鈥 and already compare the performance of disadvantaged pupils with national averages for disadvantaged pupils. Its analysis suggested inspectors were doing this, it added. Ofsted plans to update its inspection toolkit in June, for introduction in September. But a spokesperson said these changes 鈥渁re about clarifying the data we already compare when evaluating achievement. They do not reflect a change to the way we reach our judgments. 鈥淲e will not be revisiting schools that have already been assessed under the new framework, as we are confident the report cards and grades awarded were a fair and accurate evaluation of the school at the point it was inspected.鈥 Leaders now await details on what the 鈥渟imilar schools鈥 model will comprise. The tool, developed by Ofsted and the Department for Education (DfE), is due to launch in September. As well as being available to inspectors, schools will get access to the data so they can compare themselves to similar settings. It is understood the system will bring together existing data in a new platform, to make it easier for inspectors to compare schools. The DfE said it will 鈥渁dd to schools鈥 and inspectors鈥 understanding of how schools in similar circumstances tackle shared challenges and create opportunities for their pupils鈥. Uttley said he hoped it would help inspectors to better acknowledge 鈥渢he extraordinary work so many schools do in serving the most disadvantaged communities鈥. And he hopes it will help schools to compare a range of metrics such as suspensions, exclusions, and movements off-roll, to bolster accountability and inclusion. Complex school contexts Sheriff questioned how complex school contexts will be compared. He added that proxy measures of disadvantage 鈥 such as the proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals 鈥 may not always reliably capture the challenges pupils and staff face. Ofsted鈥檚 data shows that, of 294 schools with an above-average proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals 鈥 a proxy measure for disadvantage 鈥 43 per cent fell below the 鈥榚xpected standard鈥 for achievement. This compares to 33 per cent of schools with a 鈥渃lose to average鈥 level of free school meals eligibility, and just 16 per cent of those with below-average eligibility. To hit the 鈥榚xpected standard鈥 grade, pupils鈥 attainment and progress in national tests and exams must be 鈥渂roadly in line with national averages鈥, according to the inspection toolkit used by inspectors. For the new framework, Ofsted also adopted a 鈥渟ecure fit鈥 model of evaluation to award judgments, meaning each standard within each grade must be met before it can be awarded. This was a change from the inspectorate鈥檚 鈥渂est fit鈥 model under the previous framework, which allowed inspectors to award grades by determining a 鈥渂est fit鈥 across a range of standards. Not a level playing field Andy Jordan, inspection and accountability specialist at leaders鈥 union ASCL, said that 鈥渨hile national benchmarks are the default, and the secure fit methodology remains in place, it is not going to be a level playing field鈥. Paul Whiteman, general secretary of leaders鈥 union NAHT, described the introduction of 鈥渟imilar schools鈥 as 鈥渟eemingly a tacit admission that the current system is flawed鈥. But he said it 鈥渟eems very unlikely to wholly mitigate the illogical use of national average performance measures鈥. He added: 鈥淲hat would really make a difference would be a lower-stakes, more supportive system, with narrative judgments which identify a school鈥檚 strengths and identify areas for improvement, without the risk of unfair, unreliable graded judgments which may harm the wellbeing of dedicated school leaders and their staff. 鈥淲e need a system which acknowledges the context and communities in which professionals work from the outset, rather than hanging inspection outcomes on performance measures and national averages.鈥
CC 23 May 2026 We are just such a school. Although our grade for achievement was unfair (as is the secure fit model where we lost out on strong on a number of other areas), the thought of re – inspection fills me with horror. A judgement on data could be done remotely. They have our IDSRs and could do the comparisons for a regrade without coming anywhere near us!