Ofsted must decide what kind of inspection system it wants to be

Is Ofsted a quality assurance system, delivered by trained and accountable inspectors? Or is it quietly becoming a peer review exercise, staffed increasingly by serving leaders working for free?

That question matters because inspection remains one of the highest-stakes processes in our school system. A judgement can define a school’s reputation and a leader’s career overnight.

Why I Still Believe in Independent Inspection

I have taught and led schools through every iteration of the Ofsted framework over more than 30 years, and I fundamentally believe in independent inspection. Schools are responsible for other people’s children and entrusted with public money; scrutiny is right and proper.

How the Ofsted Framework Has Driven Real Improvement in Schools

Ofsted has also been one of the most powerful drivers of change in that time. The 2019 framework’s focus on curriculum did more to reshape what happens in classrooms than most white papers or Department for Education (DfE) strategies, prompting a much sharper focus on what children are taught, how knowledge is sequenced and what pupils remember and can apply. Primary schools in particular, long focused on data and outcomes over subject-level curriculum quality, saw genuine improvement, and I have seen that improvement first-hand across primary, secondary and further education settings. More recently, inspection’s shift toward a broader, more holistic view of children’s lived experience, especially disadvantaged pupils, has been valuable too.

What We’re Seeing at Haringey Education Partnership

At Haringey Education Partnership, we have examined the methodologies used across successive inspection frameworks and applied them not simply to help schools prepare for Ofsted, but to understand and improve their work alongside school leaders. These methodologies have provided valuable lenses through which to examine the quality and impact of school improvement.

Case sampling is a good example. We have begun to use this approach to understand a child’s whole experience in school: in lessons, social times, interventions and the school’s engagement with families.

This approach helps us get beneath top-level activity, systems and policies. Since September 2026, there has also been increased focus on the real impact of leaders’ decisions and actions on children and their experience in school, rather than just a focus on leaders’ intentions.

My Real Concern: The Direction of the Inspection Workforce

So, my concern isn’t with inspection itself. It’s with the direction the inspection workforce is moving.

There has always been some variation among Ofsted inspectors and HMIs; differences in judgement are inevitable in any system run by people. Many schools report positive experiences, and inspectors are frequently described as professional, insightful and supportive. The answer isn’t a system without variation, it’s one with enough expertise, quality assurance and accountability to manage that variation fairly. That’s why the growing reliance on serving school leaders inspecting on an unpaid basis concerns me.

Should Serving School Leaders Inspect for Free?

This isn’t an argument against serving leaders’ involvement. I wholeheartedly support it. Practising heads bring current experience and credibility that strengthen inspection teams. But asking them to do this work unpaid, and framing it mainly as professional development, risks blurring the line between statutory inspection and peer review.

Peer Review vs Statutory Inspection: Why the Distinction Matters

Peer review is genuinely valuable. It builds honest professional dialogue and strengthens leadership. But it doesn’t carry the same public, personal and professional consequences as statutory inspection. If Ofsted is moving toward a peer review model, it needs to say so, and reconsider whether inspection’s current high-stakes consequences still fit.

The Equity Problem: Not Every School Can Release Staff

There’s an equity question too. Smaller and standalone schools, and maintained community schools already stretched thin by restructuring and reduced staffing, may struggle to release senior leaders for inspection work. Larger academy trusts, that are often better resourced, can release staff more easily. That risks an inspection workforce drawn disproportionately from organisations with the most capacity, hardly representative of the system it’s judging.

What Ofsted Should Be Transparent About

Ofsted should be transparent about how serving leaders are recruited, trained, deployed and held accountable, and how HMIs’ authority operates within mixed teams.

Conclusion: Ofsted Must Decide Which System It’s Building

I remain a firm advocate for independent inspection. But the higher the stakes, the stronger the safeguards need to be. Ofsted needs serving leaders in its workforce, bringing current knowledge under the leadership of expert HMIs. What it must not do is let professional inspection drift into an unpaid peer review model without being honest about what that means for accountability, consistency and fairness.

Peer review can be a powerful force for improvement. But it isn’t statutory inspection. Ofsted must now decide which system it’s building, and make sure its workforce, methods and consequences line up.

Fran is the Lead Improvement Partner and Deputy Chief Executive at HEP. She works extensively across all HEP schools and beyond. With a deep commitment to educational excellence and leadership development, Fran plays a pivotal role in shaping HEP’s strategic direction, working closely with school leaders, local stakeholders, and national education bodies to drive sustainable school improvement.