VIEWS & OPINION
On the recent changes regarding the Ofsted rating system Comment by MARK SIMPKINS, Further Education Ofsted Consultant at FE Quality Consulting
The new Ofsted report card proposals represent a dramatic shift in approach that has sparked significant debate in the education sector. While ostensibly addressing concerns about oversimplification, the proposed changes may have created a system of unprecedented complexity that raises serious practical and philosophical questions about inspection frameworks.
The shift to a five-point scale (from “causing concern” to “exemplary”) appears more nuanced than the current four-point system, but the implications are far more complex than initially apparent. For FE colleges offering full provision across all streams, the number of judgments will double from ten to twenty areas. As ASCL’s Pepe Di’Iasio points out, this creates “a set of hurdles which will be bewildering for teachers and leaders, never mind the parents whose choices these reports are supposedly intended to guide.”
The impact on different provider types highlights significant equity concerns. For FE providers delivering across all four funding streams (16- 19, Adult Education, Apprenticeships, and High Needs), this creates an overwhelming matrix of judgments, while specialist providers might face a more manageable scope, yet still more than this current framework. This disparity raises questions about whether the system achieves its core aim of providing clearer information for stakeholders. The return to a heavier focus on data, particularly in the “achievement” category where providers will receive lower judgments if achievement rates fall “below comparable national rates,” signals another significant shift. While data-driven decisions can provide objectivity, this approach must be balanced against Ofsted’s stated aim of considering context and disadvantage. The promise of using contextual data including learner characteristics and local area demographics is positive, but implementation will be crucial.
There are also serious concerns about consistency and validity. As union
leaders suggest, making such a large number of fine-grained judgments during a time-limited inspection raises questions about reliability. If maintaining consistency was challenging with a four-point scale, expanding to five points across multiple areas magnifies this concern significantly.
The timing and development of these changes has also drawn criticism. Whistleblowers’ claims that the consultation is a “sham” and that the new inspection report cards have been “cobbled together at ridiculous speed” raise concerns about the robustness of the proposed framework. The NEU’s position that these changes “will make matters worse, not better” suggests a significant gap between the sector’s hopes for reform and the reality of the proposals.
While Ofsted argues this approach will “help reduce pressure on staff – by presenting a balanced picture of practice across more areas, not a single overall grade,” there’s a legitimate counterargument that multiplying the number of judgments could actually increase pressure and anxiety. The system appears to be replacing one form of reductionism with another, potentially more complex one.
The 12-week consultation period until April 28 will be crucial in addressing these concerns and finding a workable balance between nuance and practicality. With implementation planned for September and inspections delayed until November to allow for training, there’s an opportunity to refine these proposals. However, the fundamental question remains: in attempting to move away from oversimplified judgments, has Ofsted created a system that risks being unworkable in practice? The success of these reforms will ultimately depend on finding the right balance between granular evaluation and practical implementation, while ensuring consistency and fairness across different provider types. The education sector’s response suggests this balance has not yet been achieved.
For me, these changes, at face value, seem like just a ‘complicated repackage’ version of what we currently have; evolution, not revolution.
Making the case for flexible schooling: why education can work from home
Comment by CARMEN DARE, College Principal at Greene’s College Oxford
In a world facing complex challenges, we need to evolve our thinking on what education should look like – including how we personalise the study schedules & environment of students. In the same way businesses are having to be more flexible about the needs of their workforce, educators need to be mindful that not all students work best in the ‘traditional’ 9-3 p.m classroom.
The tutorial method, the approach at Greene’s College Oxford, relies on the gradual transfer
of responsibility to the student. This is the same approach adopted by the university system. The programme is ‘flexible’ in that it can be personalised and applied as per the requirements of the student. This includes the schedule, choice of courses and study environment. Small group and one-to-one tutorials can take place in college, or online at home, guided by excellent tutors, typically leaders in their field, following the specifications of GCSE & A level curriculum. Our GCSE and A level programmes are taught in two or three tutorials per week, scheduled where and when our students are at their best. For example, this might be late morning to adapt to their natural sleep patterns, or early afternoon to fit in with their professional training in sport or music. We expect each student to spend 2.5 - 3 hours preparing for their tutorials. It is this very transmission of responsibility that cultivates independent learners (and generates a significant improvement in results). Our students flourish when empowered to enrol in an education environment that suits their particular needs. We see this direct comparison with our retake students. The same tutorial method encourages students to develop an innate curiosity for their subject, to ask critical questions that deepen their understanding, solve problems and manage their time efficiently. With an education system which continues to dwell on one-way content
24
www.education-today.co.uk
dissemination and memorization, it is this very personalised, self-directed learning which will have the most impact on students’ future success. Afterall, students need not just knowledge, but also skills, attitudes and values to thrive in and shape their own future for a more empowered global citizenship.
Largely, our students are bright young minds who have found that more traditional educational settings simply do not offer the support they need to succeed. They find the typical school environment hinders their productivity, rather than furthering their ambitions. When the student has mastered self-directed learning, and has understood what works for them by way of a routine, the location or modality of their tuition becomes less important. We shouldn’t, thus, continue to focus on ‘where’ a student ought to learn, but rather shift our focus towards ‘how’ they can learn independently and most efficiently.
What is also interesting is that evidence suggests that some teachers leave the profession because they cannot access flexible working or part-time opportunities; thus all of us should be thinking creatively about how to match educators & student needs with curriculum and teaching requirements, and building this into the timetabling process, rather than waiting to be asked and grudgingly accommodating requests. If we are to ensure that the future of education allows for a focus on wellbeing for students and educators, and for growing core competencies that ‘future-proof’ and enhance their career prospects, then we need to recognise that new approaches are needed; in fact the results speak for themselves: this year, nearly all students applying to Russell Group Universities have received an offer.
Also, it’s not about giving up structure—it’s about giving student options. By embracing flexible learning, schools can create an environment where all students—neurodivergent and neurotypical alike— can thrive, and that includes the school staff and leaders.
March 2025
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48
