Lawyers for a school which has taken Ofsted to court have slammed its 鈥渕ystifying and frustrating refusal鈥 to provide more detailed explanations for why it was rated ‘inadequate’. All Saints Academy Dunstable, in Bedfordshire, claims it was not provided with sufficient evidence, explanations or reasons for the Ofsted , the High Court heard. But the inspectorate argues the process was 鈥渘ot unfair in law鈥 and accused the school鈥檚 legal team of making 鈥減olicy, not legal arguments鈥. An initial two-day inspection of the school in November 2022 failed Ofsted鈥檚 quality assurance and moderation processes. A one-day “gathering additional evidence” (GAE) visit took place in January 2023, the two-day judicial review hearing was told. During the first visit, Ofsted indicated the provisional gradings would be 鈥榞ood鈥 for quality of education, sixth form, personal development and leadership and management; but 鈥榬equires improvement鈥 for behaviour and attitudes, and RI overall. But in the final report, the school was rated 鈥榠nadequate鈥 overall after being given the lowest grade for leadership and management and behaviour and attitudes. Report did no provide ‘adequate reasons’ Barrister Paul Greatorex, for the school, said Ofsted reports change lives and 鈥渢rigger statutory power to have schools taken over, closed down鈥. Ofsted reports can cause people to “lose their jobs” and 鈥渋n the tragic case of Ruth Perry, their lives鈥, he added. He said the only explanation ever given for these judgments is what is written in 鈥渢wo, possibly three鈥 pages of the report that follows the overall grade. Greatorex claimed the case is about Ofsted “losing its way”. The school previously failed in an attempt to prevent publication of the report while it pursued legal action. 鈥淯ltimately this court is going to be the arbiter of whether those two pages of reasons are sufficient in law for for those one-word judgments, given the agreed consequences of them, and given what is also agreed about their being two different inspections with differences between the provisional judgment and the final judgment,鈥 he added. He said the report issued to the school did not provide 鈥渁dequate reasons for those very serious judgments which have very serious consequences鈥. For the 鈥渧ast majority of Ofsted reports, there is going to be no need or requirement or even demand to know more than what is said, but in certain cases, there clearly is”. But Toby Fisher, the barrister representing Ofsted, said: “The draft report alone was sufficient to enable cogent representation on the adverse findings and judgments.鈥 鈥淭his was not a school saying we don’t understand the basis for your conclusions. They understood what they meant and provided evidence to contest those,鈥 he added. ‘Helpful for schools to have more detail’ Greatorex suggested the inspectorate could provide a follow-up more detailed report, the final feedback in writing or 鈥渟ome limited disclosure of the evidence base鈥, in such cases. “These are damning judgments with very serious consequences,” he said. 鈥淭here is something from our perspective both mystifying and frustrating about the steadfast refusal of Ofsted to tell schools more and explain in more detail the findings that they make,鈥 he added. He said Ofsted reports only provide an 鈥渆xecutive summary鈥 and 鈥渋t might be immensely helpful for the school to have more detail鈥. But Fisher accused Greatorex of “inviting the court to stray into essentially a policy or political argument鈥. Ofsted鈥檚 case is that 鈥渨hat was provided in the report was sufficient to comply with both statutory and common law duties,鈥 he said.聽 The report at the centre of the row states that 鈥渢oo many pupils do not feel safe鈥 and a 鈥渟ignificant number do not feel happy and many parents and staff have concerns鈥. Greatorex said Ofsted should have quantified what it meant by these statements and have guidelines to 鈥済ive some indication of what is considered to be acceptable鈥. Fisher countered that the inspectors referenced multiple data points, including various surveys, then used their professional judgments to reach the conclusions. The process was ‘not unfair in law’ In its written case outline, Ofsted states that as a “deliberate policy choice” and since 2019 its inspection reports have been “written in this a concise and digestible format”. In written arguments, Fisher said the school’s case is “misconceived”.” “The school faced the unusual, but not unique, situation where the provisional judgements shared by a team of Ofsted inspectors at the end of the first visit subsequently failed Ofsted鈥檚 quality assurance and moderation processes, engaging Ofsted’s 鈥榞athering additional evidence protocol鈥 and necessitating the GAE Visit,” he added. He said the conclusions then reached by inspectors on the evidence gathered through both visits were “considerably more negative”. He said “that process, and outcome, was undoubtedly disappointing for the school andOfsted apologised for not having got the first visit right. But it was not unfair in law.” A judgment will be handed down at an unspecified later date.