At the 2023 Autumn Liberal Democrat conference, we changed our position on school accountability in England away from the “abolish OFSTED” line, to a more pragmatic viewpoint of reforming our system of school accountability. I have taken the time to set out what reform should actually look like.

2023 was, I think it is fair to say, a fairly tumultuous year for the schools inspectorate, OFSTED. From the tragic death of Ruth Perry to increasing disquiet about the blunt-tool of single gradings.

However, whilst disquiet has been on the rise, 2023 has also seen an increase in high-quality research about what the future of school inspection should look like. From the IPPR’s review led by Loic Menzies, to Sam Freedman and the Institute for Government’s report. Another notable report was that of Public First, the consultancy firm who undertook a highly rigorous consultation on the future of school accountability.

All of these reports chimed into what appears to be a general theme and feeling now, that more of the same is not an option. Nevertheless, where opponents of OFSTED have traditionally been limited in their success is that the phraseology of “abolish” leaves the receiver of the message of the opinion that school accountability and improvement is not a priority.

The same criticism cannot be levelled at the work undertaken by Menzies and Freedman which both provide comprehensive analysis of the problems with school inspection whilst crucially providing recommendations for reforms that are rooted in pragmatism. Whilst the phrasing “reforms rooted in pragmatism” may not set the world alight, they do understand what is, to most people’s minds what is needed.

We should start, by recognising the problems that do exist within the schools inspectorate at the moment. 

These chiefly fall around three categories, workload leading up to inspections, the manner of inspections (inclusive of outcome from) and the subsequent support needed by each school to improve. However, where these issues come together is the overarching question “what is the purpose of school accountability”?

It is important to tackle real issues rather than perceived issues, for example media commentary will allow for the denigration of the inspectorate as evil use similarly hyperbolic language. There is little practical point in this approach as it allows for a obfuscatory approach to the issues at stake rather than one rooted in pragmatism.

School accountability of public sector schools, at its heart, is about the identification of the strengths and weakness of each educational establishment.

This is because as the public, we have a right to have the full information about the establishments we are sending our next generation into. There are failing schools in our country and every teacher, student and parent has an idea of a school that evokes the feeling “I wouldn’t send my child there”. Moreover, Public First’s research tells us that school accountability is seen as necessary and parents in particular are supportive of a more nuanced approach to reporting around school improvement.

The existence of those establishments is a moral failing and we should all be working to ensure that those establishments grow to give their communities the best possible.

However the solution to the failings the institutions display is not to tear them down with punitive measures, it is to recognise the strengths. For example a school that has a weak curriculum, could have world class safeguarding and an enviable personal development programme.

The complexity of the service schools provide is therefore done a disservice with single word judgements. The purpose of the inspections is to identify the weaknesses too, to this end school improvement should be the driving principle behind inspections taking place.

Resultingly, there needs to be a legitimate discussion about where responsibly for school improvement comes from. Menzies argues for a distinction between diagnoses and treatment in his review, arguing for a new “three tier approach”. 

This essentially translates as school-led development, enhanced support or immediate action”, his review argues for the use of the schools inspectorate as the diagnostic tool for identifying what needs to be improved whilst the responsibility for implementing the changes lies with the school and school improvement partners as appropriate.

Beyond the clear pragmatic argument for that report effectively acting as our more fleshed out approach to school accountability, the underlying principle of accountability should be at the core of what we aim to achieve.

* Callum Robertson is a teacher and former Chair of the Young Liberals