Ofsted’s ‘Report Card’ – It’s All About Trust

Ofsted’s Proposed ‘Report Card’

At the core of Ofsted’s current consultation is the proposed ‘report card’ showing which of five grades a school, college or independent provider has been awarded for each up to ten “inspection areas”. The grades range from “causing concern” to “exemplary”; eight of the ten inspection areas – examples being “leadership and governance”, “achievement” and “behaviour and attitudes” – apply to all institutions, whilst the further two apply, as appropriate, to “early years” and “sixth form”. There is also, across the piece, an eleventh inspection area, “safeguarding”, with two grades (“met” or “not met”).

Ofsted’s choice of five grades (except for “safeguarding”) is deliberate, for the consultation document acknowledges that two, three, four or seven grades were, in principle, possible, and gives reasons for their rejection. I’ll pick up on some of these reasons shortly, but let me firstly make some points about grading systems in general, in contexts where the grade is determined by professional judgement rather than, for example, as the result of a well-designed multiple choice test with unambiguous right/wrong answers.

Judgement needs Wisdom

Firstly, the greater the number of grades, the greater the need for wisdom in those doing the grading, for they are obliged to make the finest of judgements in deciding to award [this] grade rather than the next higher, or indeed lower. In practice, this can be very difficult, even when considerable care has been taken in defining the criteria associated with each grade. 

Not just that – the graders might wish (or be obliged) to compile (or construct?) the evidence to justify their decisions, should they be called upon to do so. This can make the process singularly bureaucratic and can influence the factors that are taken into consideration, limiting them to only those that are objectively measurable, to the exclusion of “softer” – but possibly far more relevant – features.

Secondly, suppose, for example, that ‘Alex’ is awarded grade [X] in a given context. How does ‘Alex’ feel? Dejected, certainly, for ‘Alex’ surely would have preferred a higher grade. But whether or not ‘Alex’ accepts the awarded grade is determined, to my mind, by one fundamental concept.

Trust.

If ‘Alex’ trusts the person who made the judgement, it’s very likely that ‘Alex’, though disappointed, will accept the grade [X].

But if trust is weak, ‘Alex’ might feel angry, discriminated against, misunderstood or cheated, and wish to complain or appeal. ‘Alex’ might then seek underlying detail, such as how close the judgement is to the next higher grade boundary. That’s important, for proximity to that grade boundary strengthens the case for having been judged harshly. Furthermore, ‘Alex’ knows that different judges can give different judgements, and so an appeal to an expert second opinion might just tip the balance.

If, though, the appeals process is cumbersome to access or expensive, ‘Alex’ might not have the funds, energy or will to ‘fight the system’, and so might just remain sullen. And, forever after, carry a grudge.

Here, again, the number of grades is important: the greater this number, the greater the number of grade boundaries, and so – in a climate of low trust – the greater the likelihood of disputes.

Why Five Grades?

Back to Ofsted’s choice of five grades, as determined by the professional judgement of inspectors.

Five grades will require inspectors to distinguish robustly between, for example,  “secure” and “strong” leadership and governance. Yes, there are guidelines, as specified in the various ‘toolkits’, but it’s not clear to me how an outsider, whose inspection is necessarily brief, can reliably distinguish between leaders who have “an accurate understanding of a school’s context, strengths and weaknesses [that] informs the actions they take” and those whose “astute understanding … informs and underpins their evolving response to priorities”. That all sounds like management-consultant-speak to me.

So it’s important to understand why Ofsted rejected having fewer, broader, grades.

Ofsted’s thinking is explained in the consultation document, and one of the reasons for not choosing three grades is that this “wouldn’t support continuous improvement and drive high and rising standards beyond what providers are expected to do”. You might like to think about that, about how you motivate others to up their game, and about how you yourself are motivated. 

Four grades are dismissed on the grounds that “we need to break down the current grade of ‘good’ into more parts” so helping “distinguish better between this large group of providers”, currently 77% of inspections. You might like to think about that too. Why is this a “need”? And why it is necessary to “distinguish better between this large group”? What’s the benefit?

For in this particular case there is an associated cost. The grade boundary between “secure” and “strong”, and the possibility of disputes. More generally, five grades imply four boundaries, whereas three grades have only two. Which offers the greater possibility for disputes, or for leaving a bad taste?

It’s All About Trust

Which takes me back to what I believe to be the fundamental issue. 

Trust.

If trust is low, then a wise design has fewer, rather than more, grades, with the possibility, perhaps, of increasing the number of grades as trust increases over time.

But when trust is high, then a system with more, rather than fewer, grades could well be successful from the outset.

And clearly the unhappy case is to impose a greater number of grades onto an environment where trust is low – with the likelihood that those being judged feel they have been treated unfairly and bear those grudges. Oh dear.

What, then, does Ofsted’s consultation say about trust?

In a document of some 9,000 words, the word ‘trust’ appears just twice. 

The first occurrence is right at the start: “When we make changes to the way we work, we must remember that we cannot improve the lives of children and learners, and serve the interests of parents and carers, without the trust and cooperation of the professionals working in the services we inspect and regulate.” 

That flags that Ofsted understands that trust is important.

The second is in the context of Ofsted’s response to The Big Listen:

“We also heard loud and clear that we needed … to rebuild trust in the way we carry out inspections.” 

So despite having “heard loud and clear that we need to rebuild trust” – albeit  qualified in terms of “the way we carry out inspections” rather than, say, the integrity of the outcomes – Ofsted must, presumably, believe that the current level of trust is strong enough to make five grades work.

Is that belief shared by those who will be inspected? 

And if the reality is that trust is lower than Ofsted might wish, how, in practice, can trust be enhanced?

By Dennis Sherwood, an independent management consultant and author of ‘Missing the Mark – Why so many school exam grades are wrong, and how to get results we can trust’ (Canbury Press, 2022)