We have emerged from ‘the bubble’

It is now the weekend after the event. I have had enough time to emerge from the strange Ofsted bubble which envelops you from the moment you receive the phone call until you manage a full night’s sleep after the experience!

I want to start by stating here, at the beginning of my reflection, that I think there is an important place for accountability and external scrutiny to ensure what we offer children is the best it can be. Of course, there is room for discussion around what the focus for celebration and challenge should be, and the approach that should be taken to arrive at these. I therefore entered into this process viewing the experience as important and useful – this certainly impacts the way I present my reflections.

The Process

From the first phone call until they left the site, the team of inspectors followed the Toolkit and Operating Guide to the letter. They led us through each stage, explaining the approach and the rationale carefully. They asked about the support I had in place as a Headteacher and, at each stage, were careful to check how I, the leadership team, and staff were doing.

As a two-form entry primary school, we had a team of four inspectors (mostly HMI and Senior HMI) on day one, and three inspectors on day two. On both days, we also had one Senior HMI who was with us to quality assure the inspection. They were thorough.

On day 1, the inspectors arrived exactly on time (8.00 am), met the staff and then joined leaders and staff at the school gates. One inspector immediately went to talk to parents, and the others observed as children were welcomed into school. As we know already, every minute of the day matters.

Following this, we shared our lists of children who are SEN/D with and without EHCPs, along with those who are considered disadvantaged and other groups we have identified as deserving equity. Inspectors were keen to ensure that their choice of children for case profiling was typical in our school. Four children were chosen from Early Years (including our 2–3-year-old provision) and across Key Stage 1; two children were chosen in Key Stage 2. As I have said, everything happened to the letter of the operating guidance.

Three of the inspectors immediately went out with leaders to carry out learning walks in Early Years and Key Stage 1. The lead inspector spent time with us checking the single central record, and then he and I went on a learning walk from Year 6 down to Nursery. We talked as we went about key priorities, leadership, and the curriculum as we saw it in action. We also stopped to talk about and observe provision for the children chosen for case-profiling.

Three principles during the process:

This will not be rocket science to leaders, but three principles supported the leadership team as they walked and talked.

1.  Take the opportunity to direct inspectors to evidence of impact – things that they may not notice or appreciate without your explanation.

We shared evidence of inclusion, pointed out high-quality work from across the curriculum on display, discussed the typicality of calm corridors, highlighted the caring behaviour of children towards each other.

2.  Know what you are doing as a school (not what you think everyone is doing)

A lot was expected of the leadership team. They were asked about children: their stories and adaptations made for them, inclusion, curriculum design, teacher/support staff skills and areas for development, and Early Years. Whilst ‘not knowing everything’ was not necessarily problematic, it was expected and helped the inspection move more smoothly. For example, the SENCo was asked about curriculum design in our Early Years provision. Your leaders need to be ready to be asked about things they are not specialists in. The first learning walks set the tone for how leaders feel about the rest of the inspection. The first conversations can leave leaders feeling confident and knowledgeable or set them on the back foot.

None of our leaders avoided a learning walk into Early Years. This is good in our school, where Early Years enjoys a high profile. We all recognise the significance of Early Years, but how many school leaders have detailed knowledge?

3.  Know why you are doing what you are doing (for your school, groups, children, or that individual child)

Whilst inspectors did not have a preference for a particular way of working or approach, they were keen to hear a clear rationale and evidence of impact. Leaders were able to talk about children, their progress, anomalies in behaviour – strategies that children might be using in each class, or why a support staff member might be working in a particular way with a child and if this was typical. Do not wait to share the rationale, talk about it as you go!

As the day went on, more time was spent looking at the wider curriculum, teaching and learning, inclusion, and behaviour. Specific safeguarding and inclusion meetings took place with leaders before learning walks to triangulate some of the discussions. Reflection meetings were held instead of what has traditionally been a KIT (keep in touch) meeting. These encouraged much more engagement from leaders who were present. We were given the opportunity to agree, offer challenge, and suggest where further evidence might come from if we did not feel the team of inspectors had seen what was typical. In this sense, reflection meetings felt that there was a greater emphasis on ‘being done with’ not ‘being done to’.

The reflection meeting at the end of day one allowed for some indicative judgements to be made and for planning the timetable for day two. Day two allowed us to revisit some aspects of provision we wanted them to see, spend time looking more broadly at achievement through books across the curriculum, meet with our attendance and behaviour lead, meet with a number of groups of children to collect evidence of the impact of our programme for personal development, and collect more evidence around the impact of leadership.

As you would expect, the final reflection meeting allowed for any further evidence to be added, including feedback from parent surveys and staff surveys/meetings, and the final feedback meeting allowed for indicative judgements to become provisional judgements.

A few overarching reflections:

The Areas of the Toolkit

Each area of the toolkit received a separate grading; only the toolkit for ‘Leadership and Governance’ seemed to be limited by the gradings of the others.

a) The order of the areas seem to be significant

In our inspection, indicative gradings seemed to be made in the order the aspects of the toolkit are presented. It is no surprise that safeguarding came first, closely followed by inclusion. The renewed framework does not apologise for the fact that it prioritises viewing the impact of provision and leaders' decisions on our pupils who deserve equity. It is entirely appropriate (in my opinion) to hold the view that if we are getting it right for these young people, we are likely to be getting it right for everyone.

Safeguarding and Inclusion are the foundation on which Curriculum and Teaching are built – these, in turn, are inextricably linked to Achievement (the inspection took account of the IDSR but moved to look at Achievement in action within the school, including the quality of pupils’ work in books). The toolkit was used to shape gradings for Personal Development and Well-being; Early Years (which is a collection of all the toolkits in one area); and Leadership and Governance.

Meetings with trustees and our chair of the local board took place on day two. This then informed the grading for Leadership and Governance. We were told that this area of the toolkit relied on the judgements in the others.

b) Themes ran like threads

Whilst each area of the toolkit was graded individually, there were themes that ran through many of them.

Theme 1: Inclusion

I have already explained some of the thinking around this. It is worth noting that inclusion appears as a focus across the framework. Evidence for this was added across the two days of the inspection. Young people who deserve equity are the ‘litmus test’ for how well a school is doing and improving.

Theme 2: Curriculum

The sequencing and coherence of the curriculum is the expectation. Whilst it may not be spelt out in bold, it features in almost every aspect of the toolkit. How are children taught to be safe? Is there evidence that children retain knowledge over time? What is the quality of the learning in pupils’ outcomes/exercise books? How does your curriculum (and timetabling) support pupils’ attendance? How do you teach children to behave well, and how do they consistently demonstrate strong learning behaviours? What is the impact of the PSHE curriculum (is it detailed and secure? What is the impact?)? How are you teaching and filling gaps in the Early Years? Is there an evidence-based approach to staff development, including developing their subject knowledge? My reflection is, if everything we do – every lesson, every experience, every trip, every interaction – is intentional, then ‘this is all curriculum.’ It makes sense that curriculum is a thread that runs through the framework.

It is of note that at no stage were we asked to provide documentation or planning we did not have already. There was very little focus on paper and lots more on the curriculum enacted and its impact.

Theme 3: Foundational Knowledge

There is a deliberate focus on how we teach young people to develop and apply foundational knowledge – spoken language, phonics, handwriting, maths. This is clearly spelt out in Strong Foundations in the First Years of School (2024), and there was an expectation to see this lived out in Early Years/KS1 and beyond. There were discussions about this across the two days. There is definitely a cultural shift happening in Early Years – it seems that establishing a rich and enticing provision with carefully planned enrichments is not enough (not even in provision for 2–4-year-olds). There is a shift towards drawing children (particularly those who may have gaps or additional needs) into the provisions they need so they have lots of opportunities to practise and develop. 'This might be their one chance'. The Early Years practitioner in me is still struggling with the balance of play and formal learning, child initiation and adult direction, however I do not think we need to be forced into a binary position on this. The goal for us as a school has always been: how do we ensure enhanced provision and provision children are directed to is still rich, meaningful and playful? I think this cultural shift is one that schools and private settings may need to grapple with.

Theme 4: Relationships

Strong relationships that are not just transactional, but embrace the messiness of genuine community and engagement, underpin the evaluation of schools in this framework.Inclusion is impossible without it; achievement relies heavily on it; great Early Years is defined by it; attendance, behaviour and personal development are built upon it. This requires a recognition that we (as schools) sometimes get it wrong. We need to be more open, we need to see feedback (however uncomfortable) as a gift, we need to be less defensive – this does not mean we do not speak out when things are not right. Genuine community requires honest, candid but compassionate communication. This certainly helps us to do what is right for our young people but also supports the school improvement work we are involved in.

c)  The burning issue of ‘gradings’:

From the first phone call until the final feedback meeting, the refrain ‘the bar has been raised’ was repeated. We are all aware that expectations have been increased. In the first phone call, it felt as if ‘Needing Attention’ as a grading was to become more normalised. There is a recognition that more communication is needed here for schools and parents. There was some mention about monitoring visits focusing on the areas of the toolkit with this grading, and schools being able to request monitoring visits when they were ready.

It was not spelt out, but it felt as though ‘Expected Standard’ was a higher bar than ‘Good’ in the previous framework, and ‘Strong Standard’ is a higher bar than ‘Outstanding,’ although no direct comparisons were made. ‘Exceptional’ should also be regarded as, well, exceptional – rare, and almost needing local/national attention.

So overall,

I think this gives us lots to consider as school leaders, as we plan school improvement work that makes a difference for our children (not just for Ofsted!). The process of inspection was exacting and exhausting – there are still tweaks to make and communications to share. The ‘renewed framework' does, however, seem to be focused on the right things. It will be interesting to see how the framework evolves, as it inevitably will.