This blog is related to my analysis of the draft 2019 Ofsted inspection framework. You can find the index page HERE and a main blog introduction HERE.

Leadership and Management
Unlike the previous framework, leadership and management are moved down to the final, rather than the first spot for judgement. This is an interesting shift of emphasis away from the “heroic leadership” paradigm we have seen for the last 30 or so years. That said, leadership still receives considerable focus. Here are my key takeaways:
 
Issue 1: Much of the discussion of leadership focuses on the vision for curriculum. Leaders are held accountable for setting the values and policies which lead to a high quality education. As such this is directly connected to the “quality of education” element.
 
The implication here is that the leadership of a school needs to be setting the framework in which curricular excellence can thrive. Christine Counsell has written some excellent blogs on this. It is notable that this focus mean SLT are no longer prescribing pedagogy but creating the policies to enable high quality education. This might be a very big shift for schools where centrally directed pedagogy decisions have dominated. On this theme, I think James Woodcock’s blog on subject sensitive senior leadership is excellent, as is Nick Dennis’ post on engaging subject leads in curriculum planning.
 
Issue 2: There is a large focus on senior leaders developing the subject and pedagogical knowledge as well.
 
In terms of subject and pedagogical development I think it will be important for senior leaders to engage with subject associations and explore the possibilities of joint working to develop subject expertise in regions. In history for example, both the Schools History Project and Yorkshire History Forum offer excellent subject development for schools in and around Leeds (and nationally for the SHP), but few schools engage. There are also implications for the provision of appropriate support and training for new staff and trainees. For too long the ITE provision in schools has been quite patchy. Senior leaders will now have direct responsibility for ensuring high quality, subject specific training is being supported in school. Again, links with local HEI education departments may be helpful here.
 
Issue 3: There is a significant thread related to workload throughout the two main elements of the framework. Senior leaders are held responsible for taking account of staff pressures and managing workload in a realistic and constructive way. This is hugely important as the adage in schools when I trained to teach was that good was never good enough. Increasing accountability demands overburdened teachers with little discernible effect.
 
The key takeaway here is that policy decisions can no longer be a case of keeping adding new things on. Senior leadership teams will need to consider the efficacy of what they are doing and whether it sits coherently with their whole school approach. The days of fortnightly triple lock marking were already numbered, but this makes it clear. If your school has not reviewed the workload impact of its policies and their effectiveness since 2014, then now is the time to do so. The Key provide a useful flowchart for deciding whether a new policy is necessary, and I really like James Woodcock’s version too.
 
Issue 4: There is a much publicised paragraph about not “off-rolling” or “gaming”.
 
I don’t think this needs much exploration here, but may be a challenge in some contexts.
 
Issue 5: There are also sections on engagement with parents and governors, and to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place to protect staff and students.
 
Much of this is not new.
​

This blog is related to my analysis of the draft 2019 Ofsted inspection framework. You can find the index page HERE and a main blog introduction HERE.

Behaviour and Attitudes
The behaviour an attitudes of students are separated out from personal development and welfare in the new framework. Although the three clearly overlap, this should allow greater focus on the specifics of behaviour and attitude within the school. I have certainly worked in schools in the past where behaviour was lacklustre, but where it would have been unfair to say that student welfare was compromised overall. This usually resulted in the school being graded better for the old behaviour and welfare element than perhaps behaviour alone would have allowed. In some senses then I can see the logic of divorcing this element. I suspect there are also concerns with relation to teacher retention and recruitment, hence the increased focus. I have tried to draw out some of the key points below:
 
Issue 1: Much of the focus in this very brief (compared to “quality of education) section is on high expectations and positive attitudes. The language is actually not too dissimilar to that used within the Teachers’ Standards. The school needs to show “high expectations”, to apply these “consistently and fairly”, to enable students to have a positive attitude towards learning, and to encourage resilience and pride in their work.
 
From a school point of view, I suspect that much of this will be uncontroversial. There is no fixed idea about how these things might be achieved, nor of the level of behavioural intervention as long as things are fair, consistent, and have a positive impact on conduct. Where schools may want to take more note is if they have systems which work in theory, but in practice are subverted because they don’t work in practice, or because staff are not supported when they do use the behaviour systems. There is an implicit focus on the idea that good behaviour needs to be supported at all levels in school. This is something Tom Bennett touched upon in his 2017 Behaviour Report: “Creating a culture: how school leaders can optimise behaviour”
 
Issue 2: One challenging element in the new framework draft is the re-wording around attendance. Previously this was termed “prompt and regular”, but now the demand is “high attendance” and “punctual.”
 
This will clearly present much greater challenges to some school than others. We won’t really know until the framework has been in operation or a while where the inspectorate will se the line for this. Or indeed, whether this will be related more to local circumstances. The new challenge however is balancing attendance with the curricular demands outlined in the rest of the framework. One approach to improving attendance for some student was to reduce curriculum. There is no knowing at this point which of these aspects might take priority.
 
Issue 3: A nice addition to this framework is the focus on staff and students reflecting a positive and respectful culture.
 
Whilst this presents some challenges, I suspect that most schools hold this principle as fairly central. It does however mean some considerable thought before adopting extreme zero tolerance approaches to behaviour management, or by contrast, extreme laissez faire approaches. Sensible policies which are widely supported by the school and staff seem to be key.
 

Personal Development
As already noted, personal development is separated out from the welfare heading in this framework. Interestingly, personal development also overlaps with the “quality of education” element, reinforcing the strong focus on curriculum in the draft. Again, here are my key takeaways:
 
Issue 1: There is a balancing of the language of academic challenge from the “quality of education” section with a focus on curricular breadth in non-academic areas. This chimes to some extent with the Activity Passport idea mooted by Damien Hinds before Christmas. However there is a focus on helping students to develop interests and talents beyond academic, technical, or vocational subjects.
 
In principle I cannot see many schools disagreeing with this. However I think it raises significant challenges for some institutions. First, those schools who prioritise examination results above all else, cutting back broader educational provisions and limiting freedoms of choice for students at risk of not hitting targets. Second, those schools for who fail to offer provision beyond the curriculum at all. This is actually much more challenging as financial constraints have meant schools being unable to fund extensive extra-curricular activities and having to rely heavily on the goodwill of staff. I do fear that this focus will lead to increasing pressure for staff to offer extra-curricular provision. This was an issue discussed at length on Paul Dwyer and Will Bailey-Watson’s podcast recently.  There may also be implications for the school day. Many Yorkshire schools now have a 30 minute lunch break, leaving little time for extra-curricular provision. For schools with large numbers of children who are “bussed-in” this is really the only time for a fully accessible provision. 
 
Issue 2: There is quite a heavy focus on “character development”. This seems to include things like resilience, confidence and independence, as well as physical and mental wellbeing. So far this feels like the least coherently thought through point. A huge range of things are covered here and there is a lot of debate now about where the remit of schools ends. That said there is a reduction of “listed” topics e.g. healthy eating, internet safety etc. This might encourage a more coherent and locally applicable approach to what an appropriate pastoral curriculum might look like.
 
I do worry here that there will be a flurry of consultants offering resilience lessons and the such like. For my money, this needs couching much more in terms of how the school supports student development. The obvious answer to a lot of this is a functioning pastoral system, but that doesn’t seem immediately obvious from the text. My plea here: don’t try to tick the boxes without proper consideration for the whole school pastoral approach. 
 
Issue 3: British values finds its way in here again.
 
Until genuine consideration is given for how we teach civics and politics to students under the age of 16, there will be little real progress in this area. As a history teacher I know that I have often had to pick up elements of civics with students because our provision in the UK in this area is so dire. Even when we have had citizenship lessons in the past, the content had been far too vague. Any school which develops a proper civics programme in response to this would get a huge thumbs up in my book!

This blog is related to my analysis of the draft 2019 Ofsted inspection framework. You can find the index page HERE and a main blog introduction HERE.

Quality of Education
In the Ofsted framework draft, quality of education goes into the top spot. It is split into three key areas: intent, implementation, and impact. These three encompass a large amount of what was once covered in the old framework under quality of teaching, and pupil outcomes. However there is now much more focus on coherence. I have drawn out some key points below:

Issue 1: References to teachers and teaching are grounded in the knowledge of teachers and their ability to ensure content is remembered. The phrase “cultural capital” is central. This could be interesting in shifting the focus onto what is learnt by pupils rather than how.

All of this has great implications for the way schools organise and run CPD. Teachers will clearly need supporting in their subject knowledge and pedagogy development, as well as updating their knowledge of the processes of learning and how students remember. This also implies trusting departments much more to be able to identify and meet their developmental needs. An interesting starting point would be to ensure curriculum leads have read current research finding such as those from the How People Learn project HERE and HERE, and Willingham HERE. It would also be worth exploring what local university education departments are offering (for example at Leeds Trinity HERE). For subject leads, engagement with their subject associations will also be key (The Historical Association, or Schools History Project for historians for example).

Issue 2: Ambition and curricular breadth get heavy emphasis. The implication here is that students should not be prevented from sitting challenging qualifications, nor have their curriculum reduced to promote higher outcomes on a narrower range of subjects (especially relevant in exam years e.g. Y6 and Y9).  

This has big implications for schools who have narrowed their KS2 or KS3 curricula to allow more time for exam preparation. There are also implications for the ways in which pathways are used at KS4. Some schools for example still prevent students from sitting “academic” subjects if they are considered to have little chance of achieving a grade 4 pass. There is some reference to national exams where appropriate as a measure, but the parameters of what will constitute “achieving well” are not defined (yet!).
 
Issue 3: There are interesting references to assessment systems being used systematically to check pupil understanding and facilitate feedback without creating workload burdens for staff.

This may be a challenge for schools with very regular data drops, or schools using GCSE type questions regularly as a proxy for assessment through KS3. This form of assessment does not have much basis in identification of barriers or misconceptions, and often fails to enable effective feedback for students. I have written on this subject before HERE.

Issue 4: The teaching focus is shifted to clarity of presentation and sequencing. Much less emphasis is put on the style of teaching, promoting an emphasis on what is being learned by pupil and the impact of teaching on this.

Whilst this suggests a shift in focus onto what students are actually learning there are some risks here of performative response. There seems to be a danger that schools may insist on regimes of knowledge checking or regular, detailed feedback to meet the demands of the new framework without considering the efficacy of such an approach or the workload implications. It does however suggest that some subject specialists observers will be needed in all schools to identify and comment on the impact of curricular intentions. This could be very powerful if devolved to a departmental level, and might in turn encourage the kinds of curricular development desired in point 

Issue 5: Finally, there is a large focus on ensuring that learners are prepared for the next stage in their education or employment, rather than just exam results. Helpfully the problematic phrase that students should meet or exceed age expectations is gone as this became a proxy for counting numbers at Level 4 or Grade C in the past. There is also an interesting shift away from pupils being prepared for future qualifications or jobs which meet a national or local need to jobs and qualifications which match their aspirations and intentions. In my view, this is much more positive framing.
​
I have written at length about the fact that too many schools focus on the performative aspects of passing exams, whilst ignoring the longitudinal aspects of student development. This is often seen in the learning of “exam technique”: tricks which create an illusion of understanding without laying the necessary groundwork for future progress. Here schools will need to engage again with their subject specialists and draw on the expertise in subject associations in order to really consider what it means to prepare for the next stage. Schools will most likely need to revisit their thinking around progression and consider whether their models of progression and assessment are actually fit for this purpose. A helpful starting point from a whole-school point of view would be to read the Report of the NAHT Commission on Assessment which was published shortly after the abolition of National Curriculum Levels in 2014.