There’s been a lot of noise in the education world recently about Ofsted’s proposed “report card” model – and for good reason.
After years of criticism over the rigidity and high-stakes nature of current inspections, the promise of a more nuanced, contextualised approach has been welcomed. But, as Ofsted itself has now admitted, its future plans “need simplifying”.
The ambition is clear: move beyond headline judgments and instead give schools a deeper, fairer picture of how they’re doing. From November, Ofsted plans to inspect schools across 11 different areas, using a five-point scale that ranges from “causing concern” to “exemplary”.
It’s a bold proposal. But boldness doesn’t guarantee clarity, and for many in the sector, alarm bells are already ringing.
Our Senior Account Manager and resident education expert, Karen Beach, commented:
“It’s good to see Ofsted making changes, but they need to make sure the new system is clear and easy to use. Schools need a framework that supports them and focuses on what really matters, like inclusion, equality and equity, without adding extra stress. We need to ensure that this a tool that helps schools improve, not something that makes their work harder.”
From rigid to… overloaded?
The existing four-grade system – “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Requires Improvement”, and “Inadequate” – has long been criticised for being reductive.
A single word can’t possibly reflect the full story of a school’s strengths, challenges, or progress. School leaders, teachers, and families deserve more context, more clarity, and more insight.
So, in principle, Ofsted’s new model should be a step forward. A broader view of school performance? Yes, please. Recognition that inclusion, wellbeing, and relationships matter just as much as academic data? Absolutely.
But the current proposal – eight evaluation areas, plus separate categories for safeguarding, early years, and sixth form – means schools can expect up to 11 ratings. That’s a lot to take in. Add to that the concern over how inclusion is being assessed both as a standalone toolkit and as a thread throughout other categories, and it’s easy to see why many are worried that the model might replace rigidity with complexity.
In other words: this new system, designed to reduce pressure, risks creating more of it.
Listening to the sector
To their credit, Ofsted have consulted with education professionals, parents and carers throughout the process, and have acknowledged the feedback.
National Director for Education, Chris Russell, recently said the watchdog is “looking hard” at how to better explain the new grading criteria. But school leaders and education unions are calling for a pause. They want the rollout delayed until 2025 to give time for genuine consultation and co-production.
They’re not saying no to change. They’re saying: get it right.
And they have a point. While there’s broad support for a greater focus on inclusion, mental health, and contextual understanding, we mustn’t lose sight of the practicalities. Any new model must be usable, not just aspirational. It must enhance understanding, not add confusion. And it must work for schools of all types and contexts - not just the ones already set up to thrive under a new framework.
The power of balance
At Flourish, we believe in clarity, transparency, and fairness. We welcome Ofsted’s intention to look at the whole picture, not just a headline grade. But we also know that more isn’t always better. Sometimes, more is just… more.
The solution lies in balance.
We need a system that provides depth and clarity. One that values inclusion and wellbeing alongside curriculum and outcomes—but doesn’t treat those things as separate tick boxes. One that holds high standards, but also reflects the unique journeys of different schools, communities and pupils.
Crucially, we need a system that schools can actually work with - one that empowers improvement, rather than driving workload and anxiety.
What could that look like?
Here’s what we think would help move things in the right direction – for everyone in the education system:
- Fewer, clearer categories: Focus on the areas that matter most and consolidate overlapping ones.
- Transparent, jargon-free criteria: Clear descriptors for each grade, with practical examples to show what good and great look like.
- Inclusion embedded throughout: Rather than bolt-ons, make inclusive practice central to every area of judgment.
- Co-design with the sector: Right now, voices from virtual schools, specialist settings, and alternative provision have been largely absent from the conversation. That needs to change. A fair framework reflects the whole system, not just the mainstream.
- Time to adapt: Rushing in a new framework benefits no one. Give schools time to understand and prepare, so the model drives reflection, not fear.
Let’s build trust, not tension
Inspection should never feel like a game of gotcha. It should be a process that builds trust, celebrates success, and supports real, lasting improvement. That’s the kind of system schools want, and students deserve.
Ofsted’s willingness to admit the proposed changes need work is a good sign. But now comes the important part: simplifying the model without diluting its purpose.
Let’s not swap one kind of rigidity for another. Let’s aim for balance: thoughtful, transparent, and grounded in what really helps schools improve.
