红桃影视

As a former national lead for equalities with Her Majesty鈥檚 Inspectorate, I am deeply concerned about the inclusion judgment at the heart of Ofsted鈥檚 new framework. The evidence suggests they have not learned lessons from their previous foci on other pupil groups and ignored good practice.

Ofsted鈥檚 鈥榠nclusion鈥� grade references the 2010 Equality Act, which covers nine protected characteristics, including ethnicity. SEND pupils, children known to social care and those who 鈥榤ay face other barriers鈥� are now , with the intent of shifting focus from compliance to meeting every student’s needs and enhancing accountability for SEND.

However, the definitions of SEND and 鈥榖arriers鈥� are vague. Does SEND only include those with identified needs, receiving support or intervention, or with mandated EHCPs? Or will inspectors seek out unidentified needs during observations?

Meanwhile, the Inclusion Task Group鈥檚 narrow focus on SEND makes no mention of 鈥榙isadvantaged鈥�, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller, EAL, or white working-class pupils.

Yet analysis of socio-economic and ethnic profiles of SEND students would show most straddling at least one or more of these pupil groups. Hiving off pupils into distinct groups based on labels in this manner is neither inclusive, nor instructive.

SEND pupils are disproportionately more likely to be persistently absent from classrooms, suspended or excluded for poor behaviours. Analysing why should be at the core of inclusive inspection practice.

But bizarrely, in 2019, senior Ofsted leaders prevented inspectors from accessing Analyse School Performance (ASP) as an insightful starting point for discussion with senior school leaders. That injunction remains in place, so inspectors will be implementing this framework (just like its predecessor), blindfolded.

Consistency demands that inspectors and schools have a common understanding of inclusion

Without detailed external attainment, exclusions and suspensions data, and with schools under no obligation to share their internal data, how will they verify the authenticity of School A鈥檚 highly convincing narrative about reducing exclusions for SEND students?

And how will School B, too busy being truly inclusive to develop such a narrative, fare by comparison?

My experience is that Ofsted鈥檚 commitment to equalities focused on schools meeting their statutory requirements on discrimination.

The detailed audit I undertook in 2008 showed that only 40 per cent of reports mentioned 鈥榤inority ethnic鈥� pupils. This led to national and regional training for inspectors, with specific guidance on how to inspect race equality, exemplars of good report writing and school case studies of good practice.

Focusing on meaningful language was key. Bland report-writing full of stereotyping and vagueness (e.g.: 鈥淎ll pupils, including those with learning difficulties and disabilities, or from minority ethnic backgrounds make progress at similar rates鈥�) was replaced with contextual specificity (e.g.: 鈥淓ffective language support and participation in creative subjects helps students at early stages of learning English become part of the school community, accelerating their language skills鈥�).

As a result, inspectors faced challenging (but quite necessary) conversations when sometimes stark, uncomfortable truths in schools were exposed 鈥� for instance, where data indicated disproportionate exclusion numbers for Black Caribbean pupils, or where children did not report racist bullying for fear of not being listened to.

They were also able to celebrate previously unseen well evidenced success: leaders shared the positive impact of peer mentors, reductions in bullying and progress in early English acquisition. 

The focus on race equality was abandoned in 2012, replaced by 鈥榩upil premium鈥� pupils, and now by SEND and children known to social care.

But whatever the focus, consistency demands that inspectors and schools have a common understanding of inclusion, share accurate admissions, progress and exclusions data on the intersectionality of pupil groups and know what good practice looks like.

If not, inspectors will face a tsunami of complaints from schools on the fairness and reliability of this core judgment as schools face a grilling from inspectors on 鈥榰nmet鈥� SEND needs and 鈥榖arriers鈥� unearthed during a day and half鈥檚 worth of unvalidated lesson observations.

One ambiguous example in the new inspection guidance tells us: 鈥淟eaders have considered appropriate adaptations to teaching [鈥�]. These are not well matched to pupils鈥� needs.鈥�

How can both statements be true? And in any case, are all inspectors equipped to judge whether adaptations are effective or well-matched to needs?

Schools scrambling desperately to conform to inspectors鈥� 鈥榠nclusive鈥� checklists seriously risks discrediting the integrity of the Ofsted framework and Ofsted鈥檚 commitment to equalities, all while losing sight of the government鈥檚 reform agenda to ensure all pupils to achieve and thrive.