This post considers how Ofsted’s new emphasis on the attainment and progress of the most able learners is reflected in school inspection reports.
My analysis is based on the 87 Section 5 secondary school inspection reports published in the month of March 2014.
I shall not repeat here previous coverage of how Ofsted’s emphasis on the most able has been framed. Interested readers may wish to refer to previous posts for details:
- A treatment of Ofsted’s survey report ‘The most able students: are they doing as well as they should in our non-selective secondary schools?’ (June 2013) .
- A description of how this emphasis has been embodied in Ofsted’s inspection guidance (October 2013).
- A review of schools with poor performance table outcomes in respect of high attainers, which cross-references to their most recent inspection reports (February 2014).
The more specific purpose of the post is to explore how consistently Ofsted inspectors are applying their guidance and, in particular, whether there is substance for some of the concerns I expressed in these earlier posts, drawn together in the next section.
The remainder of the post provides an analysis of the sample and a qualitative review of the material about the most able (and analogous terms) included in the sample of 87 inspection reports.
It concludes with a summary of the key points, a set of associated recommendations and an overall inspection grade for inspectors’ performance to date. Here is a link to this final section for those who prefer to skip the substance of the post.
Before embarking on the real substance of this argument I need to restate briefly some of the key issues raised in those earlier posts:
- Ofsted’s definition of ‘the most able’ in its 2013 survey report is idiosyncratically broad, including around half of all learners on the basis of their KS2 outcomes.
- The evidence base for this survey report included material suggesting that the most able students are supported well or better in only 20% of lessons – and are not making the progress of which they are capable in about 40% of schools.
- The survey report’s recommendations included three commitments on Ofsted’s part. It would:
o ‘focus more closely in its inspections on the teaching and progress of the most able students, the curriculum available to them, and the information, advice and guidance provided to the most able students’;
o ‘consider in more detail during inspection how well the pupil premium is used to support the most able students from disadvantaged backgrounds’ and
o ‘report its inspection findings about this group of students more clearly in school inspection, sixth form and college reports.’
- Subsequently the school inspection guidance was revised somewhat haphazardly, resulting in the parallel use of several undefined terms (‘able pupils’, ‘most able’, ‘high attaining’, ‘highest attaining’), the underplaying of the attainment and progress of the most able learners attracting the Pupil Premium and very limited reference to appropriate curriculum and IAG.
- Within the inspection guidance, emphasis was placed primarily on learning and progress. I edited together the two relevant sets of level descriptors in the guidance to provide this summary for the four different inspection categories:
In outstanding schools the most able pupils’ learning is consistently good or better and they are making rapid and sustained progress.
In good schools the most able pupils’ learning is generally good, they make good progress and achieve well over time.
In schools requiring improvement the teaching of the most able pupils and their achievement are not good.
In inadequate schools the most able pupils are underachieving and making inadequate progress.
- No published advice has been made available to inspectors on the interpretation of these amendments to the inspection guidance. In October 2013 I wrote:
‘Unfortunately, there is a real risk that the questionable clarity of the Handbook and Subsidiary Guidance will result in some inconsistency in the application of the Framework, even though the fundamental purpose of such material is surely to achieve the opposite.’
- Analysis of a very small sample of reports for schools reporting poor results for high attainers in the school performance tables suggested inconsistency both before and after the amendments were introduced into the guidance. I commented:
‘One might expect that, unconsciously or otherwise, inspectors are less ready to single out the performance of the most able when a school is inadequate across the board, but the small sample above does not support this hypothesis. Some of the most substantive comments relate to inadequate schools.
It therefore seems more likely that the variance is attributable to the differing capacity of inspection teams to respond to the new emphases in their inspection guidance. This would support the case made in my previous post for inspectors to receive additional guidance on how they should interpret the new requirement.’
The material below considers the impact of these revisions on a more substantial sample of reports and whether this justifies some of the concerns expressed above.
It is important to add that, in January 2014, Ofsted revised its guidance document ‘Writing the report for school inspections’ to include the statement that:
‘Inspectors must always report in detail on the progress of the most able pupils and how effectively teaching engages them with work that is challenging enough.’ (p8)
This serves to reinforce the changes to the inspection guidance and clearly indicates that coverage of this issue – at least in these terms – is a non-negotiable: we should expect to see appropriate reference in every single section 5 report.
The sample comprises 87 secondary schools whose Section 5 inspection reports were published by Ofsted in the month of March 2014.
The inspections were conducted between 26 November 2013 and 11 March 2014, so the inspectors will have had time to become familiar with the revised guidance.
However up to 20 of the inspections took place before Ofsted felt it necessary to emphasise that coverage of the progress and teaching of the most able is compulsory.
The sample happens to include several institutions inspected as part of wider-ranging reviews of schools in Birmingham and schools operated by the E-ACT academy chain. It also incorporates several middle-deemed secondary schools.
Chart 1 shows the regional breakdown of the sample, adopting the regions Ofsted uses to categorise reports, as opposed to its own regional structure (ie with the North East identified separately from Yorkshire and Humberside).
It contains a disproportionately large number of schools from the West Midlands while the South-West is significantly under-represented. All the remaining regions supply between 5 and 13 schools. A total of 57 local authority areas are represented.
Chart 1: Schools within the sample by region
Chart 2 shows the different statuses of schools within the sample. Over 40% are community schools, while almost 30% are sponsored academies. There are no academy converters but sponsored academies, free schools and studio schools together account for some 37% of the sample.
Chart 2: Schools within the sample by status
The vast majority of schools in the sample are 11-16 or 11-18 institutions, but four are all-through schools, five provide for learners aged 13 or 14 upwards and 10 are middle schools. There are four single sex schools.
Chart 3 shows the variation in school size. Some of the studio schools, free schools and middle schools are very small by secondary standards, while the largest secondary school in the sample has some 1,600 pupils. A significant proportion of schools have between 600 and 1,000 pupils.
Chart 3: Schools within the sample by number on roll
The distribution of overall inspection grades between the sample schools is illustrated by Chart 4 below. Eight of the sample were rated outstanding, 28 good, 35 as requiring improvement and 16 inadequate.
Of those rated inadequate, 12 were subject to special measures and four had serious weaknesses.
Chart 4: Schools within the sample by overall inspection grade
The eight schools rated outstanding include:
- A mixed 11-18 sponsored academy
- A mixed 14-19 studio school
- A mixed 11-18 free school
- A mixed 11-16 VA comprehensive;
- A girls’ 11-18 VA comprehensive
- A boys’ 11-18 VA selective school
- A girls’ 11-18 community comprehensive and
- A mixed 11-18 community comprehensive
The sixteen schools rated inadequate include:
- Eight mixed 11-18 sponsored academies
- Two mixed 11-16 sponsored academies
- An mixed all-through sponsored academy
- A mixed 11-16 free school
- Two mixed 11-16 community comprehensives
- A mixed 11-18 community comprehensive and
- A mixed 13-19 community comprehensive
Coverage of the most able in main findings and recommendations
Where they were mentioned, such learners were most often described as ‘most able’ but a wide range of other terminology is deployed included ‘most-able’, ‘the more able’, ‘more-able’, ‘higher attaining’, ‘high-ability’, ‘higher-ability’ and ‘able students’.
The idiosyncratic adoption of redundant hyphenation is an unresolved mystery.
It is not unusual for two or more of these terms to be used in the same report. Because there is no glossary in existence, this makes some reports rather less straightforward to interpret accurately.
It is also more difficult to compare and contrast reports. Helpful services like Watchsted’s word search facility become less useful.
Incidence of commentary in the main findings and recommendations
Thirty of the 87 inspection reports (34%) addressed the school’s most able learners explicitly (or applied a similar term) in the sections setting out the report’s main findings and the recommendations respectively.
The analysis showed that 28% of reports on academies (including studios and free schools) met this criterion, whereas 38% of reports on non-academy schools did so.
Chart 5 shows how the incidence of reference in both main findings and recommendations varies according to the overall inspection grade awarded.
One can see that this level of attention is most prevalent in schools requiring improvement, followed by those with inadequate grades. It was less common in schools rated good and less common still in outstanding schools. The gap between these two categories is perhaps smaller than expected.
The slight lead for schools requiring improvement over inadequate schools may be attributable to a view that more of the latter face more pressing priorities, or it may have something to do with the varying proportions of high attainers in such schools, or both of these factors could be in play, amongst others.
Chart 5: Most able covered in both main findings and recommendations by overall inspection rating (percentage)
A further eleven reports (13%) addressed the most able learners in the recommendations but not the main findings.
Only one report managed to feature the most able in the main findings but not in the recommendations and this was because the former recorded that ‘the most able students do well’.
Consequently, a total of 45 reports (52%) did not mention the most able in either the main findings or the recommendations.
This applied to some 56% of reports on academies (including free schools and studio schools) and 49% of reports on other state-funded schools.
So, according to these proxy measures, the most able in academies appear to receive comparatively less attention from inspectors than those in non-academy schools. It is not clear why. (The samples are almost certainly too small to support reliable comparison of academies and non-academies with different inspection ratings.)
Chart 6 below shows the inspection ratings for this subset of reports.
Chart 6: Most able covered in neither main findings nor recommendations by overall inspection rating (percentage)
Here is further evidence that the significant majority of outstanding schools are regarded as having no significant problems in respect of provision for the most able.
On the other hand, this is far from being universally true, since it is an issue for one in four of them. This ratio of 3:1 does not lend complete support to the oft-encountered truism that outstanding schools invariably provide outstandingly for the most able – and vice versa.
At the other end of the spectrum, and perhaps even more surprisingly, over 30% of inadequate schools are assumed not to have issues significant enough to warrant reference in these sections. Sometimes this may be because they are equally poor at providing for all their learners, so the most able are not separately singled out.
Chart 7 below shows differences by school size, giving the percentage of reports mentioning the most able in both main findings and recommendations and in neither.
It divides schools into three categories: small (24 schools with a NOR of 599 or lower), medium (35 schools with a NOR of 600-999) and large (28 schools with a NOR of 1000 or higher.
Chart 7: Reports mentioning the most able in main findings and recommendations by school size
It is evident that ‘neither’ exceeds ‘both’ in the case of all three categories. The percentages are not too dissimilar in the case of small and large schools, which record a very similar profile.
But there is a much more significant difference for medium-sized schools. They demonstrate a much smaller percentage of ‘both’ reports and comfortably the largest percentage of ‘neither’ reports.
This pattern – suggesting that inspectors are markedly less likely to emphasise provision for the most able in medium-sized schools – is worthy of further investigation.
It would be particularly interesting to explore further the relationship between school size, the proportion of high attainers in a school and their achievement.
Typical references in the main findings and recommendations
I could detect no obvious and consistent variations in these references by school status or size, but it was possible to detect a noticeably different emphasis between schools rated outstanding and those rated inadequate.
Where the most able featured in reports on outstanding schools, these included recommendations such as:
‘Further increase the proportion of outstanding teaching in order to raise attainment even higher, especially for the most able students.’ (11-16 VA comprehensive).
‘Ensure an even higher proportion of students, including the most able, make outstanding progress across all subjects’ (11-18 sponsored academy).
These statements suggest that such schools have made good progress in eradicating underachievement amongst the most able but still have further room for improvement.
But where the most able featured in recommendations for inadequate schools, they were typically of this nature:
‘Improve teaching so that it is consistently good or better across all subjects, but especially in mathematics, by: raising teachers’ expectations of the quality and amount of work students of all abilities can do, especially the most and least able.’ (11-16 sponsored academy).
‘Improve the quality of teaching in order to speed up the progress students make by setting tasks that are at the right level to get the best out of students, especially the most able.’ (11-18 sponsored academy).
‘Rapidly improve the quality of teaching, especially in mathematics, by ensuring that teachers: have much higher expectations of what students can achieve, especially the most able…’ (11-16 community school).
These make clear that poor and inconsistent teaching quality is causing significant underachievement at the top end (and ‘especially’ suggests that this top end underachievement is particularly pronounced compared with other sections of the attainment spectrum in such schools).
Recommendations for schools requiring improvement are akin to those for inadequate schools but typically more specific, pinpointing particular dimensions of good quality teaching that are absent, so limiting effective provision for the most able. It is as if these schools have some of the pieces in place but not yet the whole jigsaw.
By comparison, recommendations for good schools can seem rather more impressionistic and/or formulaic, focusing more generally on ‘increasing the proportion of outstanding teaching’. In such cases the assessment is less about missing elements and more about the consistent application of all of them across the school.
One gets the distinct impression that inspectors have a clearer grasp of the ‘fit’ between provision for the most able and the other three inspection outcomes, at least as far as the distinction between ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’ is concerned.
But it would be misleading to suggest that these lines of demarcation are invariably clear. The boundary between ‘good’ and ‘requires improvement’ seems comparatively distinct, but there was more evidence of overlap at the intersections between the other grades.
Coverage of the most able in the main body of reports
References to the most able rarely turn up in the sections dealing with behaviour and safety and leadership and management. I counted no examples of the former and no more than one or two of the latter.
I could find no examples where information, advice and guidance available to the most able are separately and explicitly discussed and little specific reference to the appropriateness of the curriculum for the most able. Both are less prominent than the recommendations in the June 2013 survey report led us to expect.
Within this sample, the vast majority of reports include some description of the attainment and/or progress of the most able in the section about pupils’ achievement, while roughly half pick up the issue in relation to the quality of teaching.
The extent of the coverage of most able learners varied enormously. Some devoted a single sentence to the topic while others referred to it separately in main findings, recommendations, pupils’ achievement and quality of teaching. In a handful of cases reports seemed to give disproportionate attention to the topic.
Attainment and progress
Analyses of attainment and progress are sometimes entirely generic, as in:
‘The most able students make good progress’ (inadequate 11-18 community school).
‘The school has correctly identified a small number of the most able who could make even more progress’ (outstanding 11-16 RC VA school).
‘The most able students do not always secure the highest grades’ (11-16 community school requiring improvement).
‘The most able students make largely expected rates of progress. Not enough yet go on to attain the highest GCSE grades in all subjects.’ (Good 11-18 sponsored academy).
Sometimes such statements can be damning:
‘The most-able students in the academy are underachieving in almost every subject. This is even the case in most of those subjects where other students are doing well. It is an academy-wide issue.’ (Inadequate 11-18 sponsored academy).
These do not in my view constitute reporting ‘in detail on the progress of the most able pupils’ and so probably fall foul of Ofsted’s guidance to inspectors on writing reports.
More specific comments on attainment typically refer explicitly to the achievement of A*/A grades at GCSE and ideally to specific subjects, for example:
‘In 2013, standards in science, design and technology, religious studies, French and Spanish were also below average. Very few students achieved the highest A* and A grades.’ (Inadequate 11-18 sponsored academy)
‘Higher-ability students do particularly well in a range of subjects, including mathematics, religious education, drama, art and graphics. They do as well as other students nationally in history and geography.’ (13-18 community school requiring improvement)
More specific comments on progress include:
‘The progress of the most able students in English is significantly better than that in other schools nationally, and above national figures in mathematics. However, the progress of this group is less secure in science and humanities.’ (Outstanding 11-18 sponsored academy)
‘In 2013, when compared to similar students nationally, more-able students made less progress than less-able students in English. In mathematics, where progress is less than in English, students of all abilities made similar progress.’ (11-18 sponsored academy requiring improvement).
Statements about progress rarely extend beyond English and maths (the first example above is exceptional) but, when attainment is the focus, some reports take a narrow view based exclusively on the core subjects, while others are far wider-ranging.
Despite the reference in Ofsted’s survey report, and subsequently the revised subsidiary guidance, to coverage of high attaining learners in receipt of the Pupil Premium, this is hardly ever addressed.
I could find only two examples amongst the 87 reports:
‘The gap between the achievement in English and mathematics of students for whom the school receives additional pupil premium funding and that of their classmates widened in 2013… During the inspection, it was clear that the performance of this group is a focus in all lessons and those of highest ability were observed to be achieving equally as well as their peers.’ (11-16 foundation school requiring improvement)
‘Students eligible for the pupil premium make less progress than others do and are consequently behind their peers by approximately one GCSE grade in English and mathematics. These gaps reduced from 2012 to 2013, although narrowing of the gaps in progress has not been consistent over time. More-able students in this group make relatively less progress.’ (11-16 sponsored academy requiring improvement)
More often than not it seems that the most able and those in receipt of the Pupil Premium are assumed to be mutually exclusive groups.
Quality of teaching
There was little variation in the issues raised under teaching quality. Most inspectors select two or three options from a standard menu:
‘Where teaching is best, teachers provide suitably challenging materials and through highly effective questioning enable the most able students to be appropriately challenged and stretched…. Where teaching is less effective, teachers are not planning work at the right level of difficulty. Some work is too easy for the more able students in the class. (Good 11-16 community school)
‘In teaching observed during the inspection, the pace of learning for the most able students was too slow because the activities they were given were too easy. Although planning identified different activities for the most able students, this was often vague and not reflected in practice. Work lacks challenge for the most able students.’ (Inadequate 11-16 community school)
‘In lessons where teaching requires improvement, teachers do not plan work at the right level to ensure that students of differing abilities build on what they already know. As a result, there is a lack of challenge in these lessons, particularly for the more able students, and the pace of learning is slow. In these lessons teachers do not have high enough expectations of what students can achieve.’ (11-18 community school requiring improvement)
‘Tasks set by teachers are sometimes too easy and repetitive for pupils, particularly the most able. In mathematics, pupils are sometimes not moved on quickly enough to new and more challenging tasks when they have mastered their current work.’ (9-13 community middle school requiring improvement)
‘Targets which are set for students are not demanding enough, and this particularly affects the progress of the most able because teachers across the year groups and subjects do not always set them work which is challenging. As a result, the most able students are not stretched in lessons and do not achieve as well as they should.’ (11-16 sponsored academy rated inadequate)
All the familiar themes are present – assessment informing planning, careful differentiation, pace and challenge, appropriate questioning, the application of subject knowledge, the quality of homework, high expectations and extending effective practice between subject departments.
Negligible coverage of the most able
Only one of the 87 reports failed to make any mention of the most able whatsoever. This is the report on North Birmingham Academy, an 11-19 mixed school requiring improvement.
This clearly does not meet the injunction to:
‘…report in detail on the progress of the most able pupils and how effectively teaching engages them with work that is challenging enough’.
It ought not to have passed through Ofsted’s quality assurance processes unscathed. The inspection was conducted in February 2014, after this guidance issued, so there is no excuse.
Several other inspections make only cursory references to the most able in the main body of the report, for example:
‘Where teaching is not so good, it was often because teachers failed to check students’ understanding or else to anticipate when to intervene to support students’ learning, especially higher attaining students in the class.’ (Good 11-18 VA comprehensive).
‘… the teachers’ judgements matched those of the examiners for a small group of more-able students who entered early for GCSE in November 2013.’ (Inadequate 11-18 sponsored academy).
‘More-able students are increasingly well catered for as part of the academy’s focus on raising levels of challenge.’ (Good 11-18 sponsored academy).
‘The most able students do not always pursue their work to the best of their capability.’ (11-16 free school requiring improvement).
These would also fall well short of the report writing guidance. At least 6% of my sample falls into this category.
Some reports note explicitly that the most able learners are not making sufficient progress, but fail to capture this in the main findings or recommendations, for example:
‘The achievement of more able students is uneven across subjects. More able students said to inspectors that they did not feel they were challenged or stretched in many of their lessons. Inspectors agreed with this view through evidence gathered in lesson observations…lessons do not fully challenge all students, especially the more able, to achieve the grades of which they are capable.’ (11-19 sponsored academy requiring improvement).
‘The 2013 results of more-able students show they made slower progress than is typical nationally, especially in mathematics. Progress is improving this year, but they are still not always sufficiently challenged in lessons.’ (11-18 VC CofE school requiring improvement).
‘There is only a small proportion of more-able students in the academy. In 2013 they made less progress in English and mathematics than similar students nationally. Across all of their subjects, teaching is not sufficiently challenging for more-able students and they leave the academy with standards below where they should be.’ (Inadequate 11-18 sponsored academy).
‘The proportion of students achieving grades A* and A was well below average, demonstrating that the achievement of the most able also requires improvement.’ (11-18 sponsored academy requiring improvement).
Something approaching 10% of the sample fell into this category. It was not always clear why this issue was not deemed significant enough to feature amongst schools’ priorities for improvement. This state of affairs was more typical of schools requiring improvement than inadequate schools, so one could not so readily argue that the schools concerned were overwhelmed with the need to rectify more basic shortcomings.
That said, the example from an inadequate academy above may be significant. It is almost as if the small number of more able students is the reason why this shortcoming is not taken more seriously.
Inspectors must carry in their heads a somewhat subjective hierarchy of issues that schools are expected to tackle. Some inspectors appear to feature the most able at a relatively high position in this hierarchy; others push it further down the list. Some appear more flexible in the application of this hierarchy to different settings than others.
Formulaic and idiosyncratic references
There is clear evidence of formulaic responses, especially in the recommendations for how schools can improve their practice.
Many reports adopt the strategy of recommending a series of actions featuring the most able, either in the target group:
‘Improve the quality of teaching to at least good so that students, including the most able, achieve higher standards, by ensuring that: [followed by a list of actions] (9-13 community middle school requiring improvement)
Or in the list of actions:
‘Improve the quality of teaching in order to raise the achievement of students by ensuring that teachers:…use assessment information to plan their work so that all groups of students, including those supported by the pupil premium and the most-able students, make good progress.’ (11-16 community school requiring improvement)
It was rare indeed to come across a report that referred explicitly to interesting or different practice in the school, or approached the topic in a more individualistic manner, but here are a few examples:
‘More-able pupils are catered for well and make good progress. Pupils enjoy the regular, extra challenges set for them in many lessons and, where this happens, it enhances their progress. They enjoy that extra element which often tests them and gets them thinking about their work in more depth. Most pupils are keen to explore problems which will take them to the next level or extend their skills.’ (Good 9-13 community middle school)
‘Although the vast majority of groups of students make excellent progress, the school has correctly identified a small number of the most able who could make even more progress. It has already started an impressive programme of support targeting the 50 most able students called ‘Students Targeted A grade Results’ (STAR). This programme offers individualised mentoring using high-quality teachers to give direct intervention and support. This is coupled with the involvement of local universities. The school believes this will give further aspiration to these students to do their very best and attend prestigious universities.’ (Outstanding 11-16 VA school)
I particularly liked:
‘Policies to promote equality of opportunity are ineffective because of the underachievement of several groups of students, including those eligible for the pupil premium and the more-able students.’ (Inadequate 11-18 academy)
The principal findings from this survey, admittedly based on a rather small and not entirely representative sample, are that:
- Inspectors are terminologically challenged in addressing this issue, because there are too many synonyms or near-synonyms in use.
- Approximately one-third of inspection reports address provision for the most able in both main findings and recommendations. This is less common in academies than in community, controlled and aided schools. It is most prevalent in schools with an overall ‘requires improvement’ rating, followed by those rated inadequate. It is least prevalent in outstanding schools, although one in four outstanding schools is dealt with in this way.
- Slightly over half of inspection reports address provision for the most able in neither the main findings nor the recommendations. This is relatively more common in the academies sector and in outstanding schools. It is least prevalent in schools rated inadequate, though almost one-third of inadequate schools fall into this category. Sometimes this is the case even though provision for the most able is identified as a significant issue in the main body of the report.
- There is an unexplained tendency for reports on medium-sized schools to be significantly less likely to feature the most able in both main findings and recommendations and significantly more likely to feature it in neither. This warrants further investigation.
- Overall coverage of the topic varies excessively between reports. One ignored it entirely, while several provided only cursory coverage and a few covered it to excess. The scope and quality of the coverage does not necessarily correlate with the significance of the issue for the school.
- Coverage of the attainment and progress of the most able learners is variable. Some reports offer only generic descriptions of attainment and progress combined, some are focused exclusively on attainment in the core subjects while others take a wider curricular perspective. Outside the middle school sector, desirable attainment outcomes for the most able are almost invariably defined exclusively in terms of A* and A grade GCSEs.
- Hardly any reports consider the attainment and/or progress of the most able learners in receipt of the Pupil Premium.
- None of these reports make specific and explicit reference to IAG for the most able. It is rarely stated whether the school’s curriculum satisfies the needs of the most able.
- Too many reports adopt formulaic approaches, especially in the recommendations they offer the school. Too few include reference to interesting or different practice.
In my judgement, too much current inspection reporting falls short of the commitments contained in the original Ofsted survey report and of the more recent requirement to:
‘always report in detail on the progress of the most able pupils and how effectively teaching engages them with work that is challenging enough.’
- Ofsted should publish a glossary defining clearly all the terms for the most able that it employs, so that both inspectors and schools understand exactly what is intended when a particular term is deployed and which learners should be in scope when the most able are discussed.
- Ofsted should co-ordinate the development of supplementary guidance clarifying their expectations of schools in respect of provision for the most able. This should set out in more detail what expectations would apply for such provision to be rated outstanding, good, requiring improvement and inadequate respectively. This should include the most able in receipt of the Pupil Premium, the suitability of the curriculum and the provision of IAG.
- Ofsted should provide supplementary guidance for inspectors outlining and exemplifying the full range of evidence they might interrogate concerning the attainment and progress of the most able learners, including those in receipt of the Pupil Premium.
- This guidance should specify the essential minimum coverage expected in reports and the ‘triggers’ that would warrant it being referenced in the main findings and/or recommendations for action.
- This guidance should discourage inspectors from adopting formulaic descriptors and recommendations and specifically encourage them to identify unusual or innovative examples of effective practice.
- The school inspection handbook and subsidiary guidance should be amended to reflect the supplementary guidance.
- The School Data Dashboard should be expanded to include key data highlighting the attainment and progress of the most able.
- These actions should also be undertaken for inspection of the primary and 16-19 sectors respectively.
Overall assessment: Requires Improvement.