For some school leaders in England, an inspection was supposed to be a measure of how well their school was serving children.
Instead, critics say, it has increasingly become a source of fear.
Now the government is preparing to reshape the inspection system again — only about a year after the latest overhaul was introduced.
Education secretary Lucy Powell is expected to ask Ofsted to reconsider parts of its new framework, particularly the way it assesses inclusion. The concern is that schools serving communities facing greater poverty, higher levels of special educational needs and disabilities, or other significant challenges may be judged without enough consideration of the circumstances in which they operate.
Powell has indicated that she does not intend to abandon the new six-area “report card” approach, which replaced the old single headline judgement ranging from “outstanding” to “inadequate”.
Instead, the focus is expected to shift towards context.
Speaking at the Labour party conference, Powell said the inspection system needed a “much stronger emphasis” on the circumstances surrounding schools.
That could prove significant.
The problem hidden behind the grades
The report-card system was introduced with an ambitious objective: to move away from a single judgement that could place enormous pressure on schools and headteachers.
But the experience since its introduction has generated a new wave of criticism.
School leaders have described inspections as intensely stressful, while unions have argued that the new framework has failed to deliver the relief that was expected.
A survey of National Education Union members who had experienced the new system found that around two-thirds considered it as bad as, or worse than, the framework it replaced. Three-quarters reported a negative impact on their mental health.
The issue has become particularly sensitive because of the death of headteacher Ruth Perry, whose experience of an Ofsted inspection became a major part of the debate over school accountability.
Perry’s sister, Prof Julia Waters, has said she has been contacted by teachers who were left feeling suicidal following inspections. She subsequently raised those concerns directly with the prime minister.
For critics of the current regime, the question is therefore no longer simply whether schools are being inspected rigorously.
It is whether the system is measuring schools fairly.
When disadvantage becomes part of the equation
Research cited in the debate has raised another uncomfortable question.
Former Ofsted inspector Steve Wren examined inspection outcomes and found that schools with higher proportions of pupils receiving free school meals or requiring SEND support tended to receive lower ratings.
His analysis also found a strong relationship between secondary-school ratings and pupils’ attainment before they entered the school.
That creates a difficult distinction.
If pupils arrive at a school already facing substantial educational or social disadvantages, how much of the eventual outcome should be attributed to the school itself?
And how much should inspectors consider the starting point?
Wren posed the issue directly: are lower grades reflecting poorer educational performance, or could the inspection framework itself be placing schools in disadvantaged contexts at a disadvantage?
There is no simple answer.
But the question is becoming increasingly difficult for policymakers to ignore.
Accountability without distortion
The National Association of Head Teachers has welcomed signs that ministers are listening to criticism from school leaders, parents and experts.
Its general secretary, Paul Whiteman, argued that schools operate in dramatically different circumstances and that an inspection framework must recognise those differences without abandoning rigorous standards.
That is the balance at the heart of the coming reforms.
Parents need reliable information about schools. Children deserve high standards. Schools must be accountable for the education they provide.
But accountability becomes more complicated when two schools begin from very different starting points.
A school serving a relatively affluent community and one working with high levels of poverty, SEND needs and other barriers may face fundamentally different challenges.
Treating their circumstances as interchangeable risks turning measurement into mismeasurement.
Another change, another test
Powell’s intervention will represent the second major alteration to England’s inspection regime in just over a year.
Ofsted is already conducting an independent evaluation of the current framework, with an interim report expected later this year.
The regulator has declined to comment on Powell’s plans.
The bigger story, however, is not simply another change to Ofsted.
It is a growing argument about what inspection is actually supposed to achieve.
A system designed to improve schools can only do so if its measures are trusted by the people being measured.
England’s next inspection reform will therefore face a difficult task: preserving meaningful accountability while ensuring that disadvantage does not become an invisible penalty — and that the people running schools are not left believing that success is being judged without understanding the reality on the ground.
The next chapter of Ofsted reform may ultimately determine whether inspection feels less like a verdict and more like what it was originally intended to be: a tool for understanding, accountability and improvement.
