Ofsted has sought feedback on its revised inspection framework. In order to inform our response to the consultation, we held a series of roundtables in March, focusing on the areas of inclusion, curriculum and attendance. These roundtables are only part of the work informing our final response and are complemented by an online survey as well as reviews of existing literature and data.

Our online roundtables were attended by Chartered College Fellows and members from a range of schools and settings, representing Early Years to Initial Teacher Training, mainstream schools to specialist provision, as well as some practitioners who are also Ofsted inspectors and Fellows who are His Majesty’s Inspectors (HMIs).

Each discussion has fed into our response to the current Ofsted and Department for Education (DfE) consultations around the inspection framework and measures proposed. It should be noted that the views summarised here are those of colleagues attending the roundtables and reflect their experiences with and opinions of the inspection system. They are not necessarily representative of the entire teaching profession or the Chartered College of Teaching as an organisation but they are important to share as part of the evidence informing discussions going forward.

In a previous blog post, we shared headline findings from our consultation. In this series, we share more detailed insights on some of the focus areas, which have also been shared with Ofsted.

This second blog shares the key points from a discussion on the focus area of curriculum.

Curriculum has been the central focus of the inspection framework since the previous reform. Schools were held to account for deep curriculum planning, knowledge and delivery but that has now been enveloped into the wider inspection framework. We wanted to know from participants whether they thought this would improve curriculum planning and implementation in their settings, or whether this new approach may have a negative impact on the prioritisation of curriculum work in schools.

What do you think of the curriculum framework?

Colleagues felt that curriculum no longer felt like the central focus of inspection due to the number of focus areas the new framework proposes. Over the past years, it has felt to many that curriculum has taken the prime focus in their inspections and there was some discussion as to how it will now sit as just one of many areas for inspection, and how the same level of discussion between inspectors and schools cannot possibly happen. The move away from deep dives in curriculum areas received mixed feedback from our groups. Some secondary colleagues felt that the loss of the ‘deep dive’ could be a disadvantage, as they would be unable to use their subject knowledge and expertise to share the curriculum journey in depth. It was acknowledged, though, that when inspectors have a specialism this can either be an advantage or a disadvantage to the inspection, depending on the beliefs of the inspector. This reliance on the inspectors’ knowledge and experience again highlighted the need for further transparency and thought around how inspectors remain impartial and inspections remain consistent. Primary colleagues, however, unanimously agreed that the removal of deep dives was a good thing and that this could reduce the stress of the inspection.

What do you think of the phrasing and framing of the curriculum toolkit/framework?

Vagueness

Colleagues felt that the vagueness of some terms in the current proposals was not helpful and there were concerns that descriptors needed to be revisited with working groups of practitioners to ensure that each level of the framework was distinguishable for each category. As with other areas, the ability to know what each grade looks like and what schools need to be secure in is important. This was echoed by an inspector in one of our focus groups, who felt

Syllabus versus curriculum

Secondary colleagues shared their concern that the curriculum inspection framework did not support the need for the washback effect from exams (i.e. exams dictating what is being taught) to be reviewed. Currently, there is a lot of ‘teaching to the test’ happening in schools, not least due to accountability pressures, and there is no indication that this would be alleviated as part of the new inspection framework. They felt little would change for them in terms of expectation, content overload, and teacher workload without this.

Not aligned to the other system reviews

Questions were raised on the timing of the Ofsted consultation around curriculum, when the Curriculum and Assessment Review is ongoing. How can decisions around exam expectations be discussed effectively when it is unknown what the curriculum recommendations will be? Colleagues expressed concern that too many decisions were being made independently of each other when they all interlinked so closely.

What do you think the potential unintended consequences could be?

Stopping curriculum development

The current Curriculum Review and Ofsted consultation have stopped some schools from undertaking their continuous curriculum review and development work, as they fear the waste of their time, effort and attention, should any changes be brought in. They would like reassurance that the expectation of curriculum development will not be an overnight change and instead have a period for transition as changes are designed and implemented effectively and without increasing workload.

This suggests that despite Ofsted’s affirmations that schools should not be driven by Ofsted’s expectations, the reality is that, in many cases, they are. This is understandable given the high-stakes nature of the accountability system but may be detrimental for school development as schools and leaders may focus on what they consider to be Ofsted’s priorities instead of what may be best for their settings. There may of course be overlaps between Ofsted’s priorities and those of the school. However, a focus on externally imposed priorities may hamper teachers’ and leaders’ agency to focus on their context-specific priorities. We know that this context-specific work necessitates teacher agency and is an essential part of school improvement work.

Return of the ‘book look’?

Participants shared that they had concerns about how the curriculum would be inspected, given the shorter timeframe available for its inspection due to so many focus areas. They were concerned about superficial approaches to inspecting curriculum work, including a potential return to ‘book looks’ (i.e. inspection of children’s books) as evidence of curriculum implementation. They felt that lesson studies would lend themselves much better to discussions around curriculum planning and implementation.

The exemplary curriculum model

Participants also discussed how the exemplary curriculum model may potentially be damaging as people try to replicate a curriculum rather than focus on creating a curriculum that is suitable for the community they serve in their context. One colleague said: “I am worried that again we will have consultants selling ‘curriculum training’ to build a curriculum that is exemplary… just like we had last time when we all had to rewrite curriculum statements. I would like the curriculum focus to be around, what are you doing for your community and why… this would feel more inclusive and open”.

Participants’ calls to improve the proposals:

• The context of the school and its curriculum choices need to lead the inspection but clarity on how this will be done fairly should be a priority
• Clearer guidance on the expectations for each of the graded levels, including phase-specific exemplification materials
• Further reassurance that the proposed framework is not designed to drive change in schools and that schools should continue to work towards the priorities they have identified for themselves instead of overhauling everything in order to conform to a new framework.