A former chief inspector has raised concerns that Ofsted reforms are set to “dismantle inspection” and “remove all aspects that constitute a comprehensive evaluation of educational content and pedagogy”.
Baroness Spielman expressed her worries during a fringe event at the Conservative Party conference today, stating, “There will be no substantive subject inspection left, which is troubling for the future of educational oversight”.
The upcoming report card reforms from Ofsted will shift away from the heightened focus on curriculum established during Spielman’s leadership from 2017 to 2024. The changes include eliminating deep dives into subjects and trimming back the curriculum teams within the inspectorate.
However, Spielman, who is now a Tory peer, remarked that “if the government genuinely valued the curriculum” for key stage 2 and 3, it would not be pursuing these reforms that detract from detailed inspections, thereby undermining the evaluation of what is taught and the methodology behind it.
‘Superficial examination of subjects’
“The remaining element of subject inspection will merely involve a cursory glance at the timetable and discussions with the senior leadership team. This is inadequate. The absence of substantial subject inspection is concerning for us all,” she stated.
The dialogue focused on forthcoming changes to the curriculum.
This follows revelations from Schools Week about plans to implement a reading assessment for year 8 students due to worries that disadvantaged students are lagging in their early secondary education.
This marks the first formal evaluation for key stage 3 pupils since SATs for year 9 were eliminated in 2008.
Spielman noted at the panel that “I believe the decision to eliminate key stage 3 assessments and the key stage 2 science test was misguided; it has contributed to the current challenges facing key stage 3 education”.
The panel also expressed concerns about the volume of assessments at the GCSE level and the number of students not achieving what is considered a “standard pass” in English and maths, leading to numerous re-sit situations.
‘The issue isn’t GCSEs’
Spielman pointed out that “it is clear that our current educational system lacks a mechanism to set a minimum expected standard for students at age 16”.
She clarified that a GCSE grade 4 (previously equivalent to a grade C) “was never intended to establish a benchmark that every student should meet; this interpretation has developed over time”.
“GCSEs aim to assess a full spectrum of grades, showcasing the distribution and ranking of students rather than defining a minimum standard overall,” she added.
Spielman remarked that the usage of grade 4 has “deviated from its original purpose in the context of general examinations”.
“The misinterpretation leads to the mistaken belief that there is a fundamental flaw in the GCSE system; in fact, it reflects a need for an additional standard that currently doesn’t exist,” she emphasized.
Regarding the amount of assessment, she commented, “The overall time spent on assessments during secondary education may have decreased, not increased, following the removal of modular assessments and numerous re-sits, thus portraying a more complex scenario”.
Reduce assessment by shifting to ‘overall GCSE grades’
Nevertheless, the former chair and chief regulator of Ofqual proposed that an “obvious strategy” to decrease the assessment workload and exam duration in year 11 would be to “revert to the model we once utilized with the school certificate, which most other nations use for age 16 evaluations”.
The school certificate, awarded to students who satisfactorily passed a set of subjects, including English and maths, was discontinued in 1951.
Implementing such a change would entail a “shift from our somewhat unusual expectation of high reliability per individual subject to ensuring reliability at the student level”.
She referenced the French “brevet” qualification, an all-encompassing diploma also awarded based on assessments of various core competencies.
