An influential think tank has set out a blueprint for how Labour鈥檚 proposed Ofsted overhaul and new school improvement model could work. The Institute for Public Policy Research () has proposed a three-tier regulatory response to delivering school improvement, with one-word Ofsted grades which fuel a hire and fire 鈥渇ootball manager culture鈥 abolished. IPPR is known to be influential in shaping Labour policy. One of the party鈥檚 key schools policies is to ditch Ofsted grades and send in new regional improvement teams to 鈥渆nd the scandal of stuck schools鈥. How no Ofsted grades could work 鈥 Labour has already outlined that it would consult on scrapping Ofsted鈥檚 current grading system and replacing it with a 鈥渞eport card鈥 if it wins the next election. On top of this IPPR said government should consult on a 鈥渘arrative-driven鈥 report for parents, accompanied by a 鈥渟imple鈥 dashboard on pupil progress data. More detailed and technical reports could be provided for the school and regulator, with judgments made on whether action is needed in each of the separate inspection framework areas. Ofsted should also be commissioned to develop and implement a new framework for trust-level inspections. 鈥 and what about intervention? But current government intervention hinges on certain Ofsted grades. So without grades, how would this work? The IPPR report proposes a trial of a three-tier regulatory response to inspection outcomes that would involve either 鈥榮chool-led development鈥, 鈥榚nhanced support鈥, or 鈥榠mmediate action鈥. The regulator鈥檚 decision (the regional director) would be made in 鈥渄iscussion with the school鈥, as well as its local authority or academy trust. 鈥楽chool-led development鈥 would apply to schools judged 鈥榞ood鈥 or 鈥榦utstanding鈥 under Ofsted鈥榮 current regime, with schools expected to pursue 鈥榗ollaborative鈥 self-improvement. This could happen through a trust, or partnership with a national network or area-based partnerships. Subsequent inspections would review how it has progressed. 鈥楨nhanced support鈥, likely to apply to schools currently deemed to be 鈥榬equires improvement鈥, would see the regulator decide whether the school could improve with additional support and oversight or is in need of a change of governance. The regional director would help a school, and its LA or trust, develop an improvement plan to identify what support is needed. The school would then be provided with resources to deliver the plan. National leaders of education could also be trained to deliver this support, the report states. 鈥業mmediate action鈥 would apply to cases where the regulator judges that insufficient progress has been made or necessary improvements cannot be delivered under current governance arrangements. Schools would be re-brokered to a new 鈥渁cademy trust or local authority鈥 and could require the governing body to be replaced. The report said: 鈥淲hilst this process will continue to be perceived as punitive, it is justified at this level, given the need to protect pupils from the harm of poor standards.鈥 Ofsted and improvement: how does that work? Under previous shadow education secretary Kate Green, the party had said Ofsted would be both inspector and improver. This led to concerns from the sector. Steve Rollett, deputy chief executive of the Confederation of School Trusts, said it risks 鈥渕ission creep鈥 and 鈥渄istortion of the inspection process鈥. But the party, under Bridget Phillipson, appears to have changed tack. In conversation with former children鈥檚 commissioner Anne Longfield at a Commission on Young Lives event last week, Phillipson said it was important to be 鈥渃lear about the distinction鈥 between school improvement and Ofsted. 鈥淲hen it comes to the work of the DfE, in terms of regional directors, that has to change with a refocusing on supporting schools around improvement,鈥 she said. 鈥淓specially those schools that have faced the greatest challenge the longest, and where there hasn鈥檛 been improvement and where children are not getting the opportunities and outcomes they deserve.鈥