New Ofsted Framework Draft (2019) Summary of Key Points

Below is a brief summary of key similarities and differences between the proposed framework and the existing one. The rest of the post takes a more detailed look at some of the differences with potential implications for schools.

Over the next few days I will be publishing some in-depth analyses of some of the key differences, along with the potential implications for schools. Please note that I will be doing this within the bounds of my own expertise, which ranges upper Key Stage 2 to University. I appreciate that the framework may have very different implications for schools teaching Foundation Stage, Key Stage 1 and lower Key Stage 2.

• Analysis 1: Quality of Education
• Analysis 2: Behaviour & Personal Development
• Analysis 3: Leadership & Management

​
I should also note that many of the changes are actually connected to issues of curriculum. Because curriculum is a core point of discussion amongst subject specialists already, the answers to many of the challenges of the new framework are already out there and accessible. The best thing senior leaders might do over the next few months is establish where their in-school, subject expertise already lies and draw on existing research and knowledge from subject associations, experts, and subject-led university education departments.

---

Similarities

• No fundamental changes to the operation of Section 5 [19]
• The four grade judgements remain the same [20] and the emphasis on being good or better remains [22].
• There is separate and specific guidance for EYFS providers [31]
• There doesn’t seem to be much change to the way in which Sixth Form provision is graded [34].

Differences

• The four judgement areas [23] are now:
  • Quality of education (Analysis 1);
  • Behaviour and attitudes (Analysis 2);
  • Personal development (Analysis 2);
  • Leadership &management (Analysis 3);
• Pupil outcomes is now gone as a judgement area in its own right, having been subsumed into the quality of education marker. Outcomes are also reworked to be those which match pupil interest and aspiration more than a focus on nationally valued employment.
• "Short inspections" are proposed to last two days rather than one.
• Inspection notice may be as little as 2.5 hours, with an inspector going to school the same day as the call to gather initial information.
• Internal performance data will not be scrutinised as evidence of progress, rather inspectors will look directly for evidence as part of the process of inspection.