Professional dialogue or procedural compliance? Interrogating Ofsted's 2025 education inspection framework

The evolution of Ofsted inspection frameworks

To understand why Ofsted devised the EIF 2025, we must revisit its two most recent predecessors from 2015 and 2019. The Common Inspection Framework (CIF) 2015 aimed to enhance coherence across educational settings, with a strong focus on pupil progress data and outcomes. In particular, progress among minority groups was scrutinised, including pupils with SEND and English as an additional language (Ofsted, 2015).

However, the education inspection framework (EIF) 2019 marked a significant departure from data-driven inspection, prioritising curriculum quality through the three ‘I’s: intent, implementation and impact (Ofsted, 2019a). While the inspection handbook emphasises that schools must provide a broad and ambitious curriculum, in practice inspectors tend to conduct deep dives predominantly in core subjects such as maths, history and English, favouring schools that deliver an English Baccalaureate curriculum (author 1, 2025). This shift away from pupil progress data raised concerns that vulnerable groups were no longer systematically tracked and prioritised.

Both the CIF 2015 and the EIF 2019 gave schools a single-phrase overall judgement. Receiving two consecutive judgements below ‘Good’ can trigger intervention by the Department for Education (DfE), including converting a local authority maintained school into an academy, removing school leadership, and imposing more frequent monitoring (Kilian et al., 2025). Munoz-Chereau et al. (2022) criticised the single-phrase grading system for perpetuating cycles of deprivation and staff turnover, making improvement nearly impossible.

Both frameworks included school demographic details and inspection team composition, but report styles differed significantly. CIF 2015 reports averaged 12 pages, opening with grading categories and previous inspection grades, followed by a summary for parents beginning with: ‘This is a ____ school’. Reports then detailed improvement actions and graded themes (Ofsted, 2015). EIF 2019 reports were shorter, averaging eight pages (Ofsted, 2019a, 2019b). They opened with ‘What is it like to attend this school?’ and included introductory paragraphs, sections on strengths, areas for improvement and clear safeguarding statements. Research comparing 780 reports under the CIF (2015) and EIF (2019) frameworks (Author 1 et al., 2026) found that EIF (2019) reports employed more ambiguous and generic language, leaving school leaders and teachers navigating persistent uncertainty and shifting expectations. Conversely, CIF 2015's data-driven approach acknowledged both school-related factors (e.g. teaching quality, curriculum, and culture) and non-school influences (e.g. socioeconomic background and parental involvement) on pupil performance.

EIF 2025, report cards and toolkits

The EIF 2025 abolished the single-phrase overall judgement and introduced a report card, preferred by two-thirds of surveyed parents (Ofsted, 2025c). Piloted in late 2025, the report card provides a digital device-friendly format, with headline grades presented at the top and drop-down sections offering commentary on each inspection area. Grading is colour-coded: Exceptional (blue), Strong standard (dark green), Expected standard (light green), Needs attention (orange) and Urgent improvement (red). The EIF 2025 aims to offer a more granular view of performance by scrutinising 7 to 9 inspection areas, including: Safeguarding, Inclusion, Curriculum and teaching, Achievement, Attendance and behaviour, Personal development and well-being, Leadership and governance, and where applicable, Early years and sixth form.

To prepare for inspection, schools can use the EIF toolkits for self-assessment and alignment with new requirements. Ofsted's website provides guides outlining inspection methodology and emphasises that inspectors will only assess areas where they have expertise (Ofsted, 2025a). Report cards provide school and pupil context in comparison with the national average, as well as next steps for improvement, aiming to enhance transparency and clarity. Ofsted (2025a) states that inspections still ‘act as a trigger for others to take action’, though specifics on who and what action remain unclear.

Inspections in Scotland and Wales

Education in the United Kingdom is a devolved policy area. Each jurisdiction determines its own curriculum, funding, governance and inspection. Since 2024, inspection systems in England, Scotland and Wales have undergone reforms, and this article offers timely insights into these developments.

Following the Education (Scotland) Act (September 2025), His Majesty's Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) has been separated from Education Scotland, with the HMCI now setting the frequency and focus of inspections rather than ministers (HMIE, 2025). Scotland's inspection model contrasts with that in England: instead of cyclical inspection of all state-funded schools, Education Scotland/HMIE inspects a sample of around 250 schools annually, using the How good is our school? (4th ed.) framework and a six-point grading scale. Inspection also places greater emphasis on school's self-evaluation and pre-inspection questionnaires capturing the views of learners, parents, staff and partners.

Estyn (2024b), the inspectorate for Wales, underwent a major reform in 2024. A key change involved replacing graded judgements with narrative-based inspection reports, aimed at reducing pressure on school practitioners while fostering professional dialogue about school context and improvement. Both Education Scotland/HMIE and Estyn utilise serving school practitioners as peer inspectors to promote professional learning and enhance fairness. Estyn also allows schools to nominate a representative to participate in the inspection process, contributing contextual information and clarifying school practices. This practice was adopted by Ofsted as part of the EIF 2025.

More assessment, more jeopardy

Since its establishment in 1992, Ofsted has employed grading systems to deliver single-phrase judgements on school performance. Although the EIF 2025 no longer provides a single overarching judgement, the report card still presents 7 to 9 colour-coded graded judgements. When making sense of the EIF 2025, most participants agreed that Ofsted was unlikely to abandon the grading system due to path dependency.

I don’t think England will shift away from this grading approach, as the idea of a quantitative element is now firmly established. Moving away from a quantitative model would likely be a major shock, both politically and culturally. (NGA 1)

When asked whether the EIF 2025 would reconfigure power dynamics between Ofsted and schools, a shared sentiment among school leaders was that doubling the number of inspection areas not only increased the ‘risk of jeopardy’ but also intensified pressure on both leaders and teachers.

Among those headteachers I have spoken to, there is more pressure, not less. We understand that the intention was to reduce pressure by moving away from four broad categories that lead to an overall judgement. However, the new framework is actually more demanding, as there are now more areas to address. Behind each of these boxes sits a grade. (HT 3)

One participant emphasised that, despite new frameworks being published every few years, the psychological impact of grading and its associated punitive consequences remained unchanged.

The thing about the grades for me is the psychology of it. In a system where receiving the wrong grade could result in losing your job, then the grades are going to be everything. As long as there is that jeopardy in the system, there's always going to be that harshness in the grades. (HT 2)

One AT leader, who also inspected schools, challenged that observation, arguing that punitive consequences stemmed from a academy trust's culture rather than being a direct outcome of inspection.

If a headteacher is seen to be working toward improvement, there shouldn’t be any jeopardy. These are two separate issues: the impact of the report card and working within a multi-academy trust (MAT). I work for a MAT, and I would be horrified if someone loses their job simply because of receiving a red or orange rating—unless their performance is genuinely bad. (AT1 and Ofsted inspector)

When explaining the purpose of the EIF 2025, the two Ofsted directors stated that inspections and the report card were primarily intended for parents. However, other participants contested this view, arguing that, without an overall rating, the new report card could further confuse parents, as it neither specifies the weighting of each inspection area nor provides guidance on how to interpret the results.

The word “exceptional” carries a consumerist connotation. Parents are treated as consumers. Schools are placed on a stage. Parents are expected to choose the “best” one. (BEL 1)

Comparing the EIF 2025 report cards with previous reports, some argued that most changes were cosmetic, such as colour-coded grades and improved digital accessibility. The longstanding challenge of engaging parents from minoritised backgrounds, however, remained unaddressed, leaving marginalised groups excluded and invisible.

A lot of the parents I work with can’t read English, so they won’t get beyond the colour code. What they really need is someone who can help them navigate the system. (HT 4)

In discussing the Ofsted consultation process and the development of the new framework, one university researcher highlighted that the new report card contradicted Ofsted's Big Listen findings.

Increasing the number of inspection areas and expanding the banding over-complicate things for parents. The framework's core intention is to make the system simpler. In this sense, it almost contradicts itself. (UNI 5 and a parent)

An inspection–improvement disconnect

The second theme concerned the power dynamics embedded within inspection and whether the new EIF 2025 would reconfigure them. One Ofsted director underlined that inspection aims to empower parents and learners:

From Ofsted's perspective, the report is primarily for parents. Not just parents but also learners. The reporting and the grading are universal across all systems—early years, further education, children's social care—and so the report really is for either the parent or the user of the system. (OF 1)

Representatives from Education Scotland/HMIE and Estyn agreed that inspectorates exercise power to ensure public accountability. However, they achieve this by integrating school improvement into the inspection process, rather than treating it as a separate task.

In Scotland the report is for school improvement purposes. So, it's for the school. Because there's much less of a choice of where you can go to school in Scotland. We don’t have this sense of marketisation… All our schools are maintained schools, so they’re under the local authority. If we believe that a school needs significant improvement or special measures, we have a process of working with the local authority. (SI 1)

The question of whether inspectors should actively drive school improvement sparked discussion. Some noted that Ofsted's power is constrained by a fragmented accountability system. Since 2010, academisation, a form of education marketisation, has accelerated. Today over half of English schools operate as academies with greater autonomy and financial independence than those under local authority supervision.

You would expect the real drive for school improvement to lie with academies and MATs. That's where the bulk of the money is. (UNI 2)

Others disagreed, arguing that Ofsted holds power over schools but bears no responsibility for school improvement. They explained that the DfE uses Ofsted's inspection outcomes to convert underperforming schools into academies or to reorganise smaller academies into larger MATs. As a result, an Ofsted inspection is often followed by changes in school ownership or leadership, fostering persistent fear among staff. The EIF 2025 will reinforce these power dynamics if the broader accountability system in England remains unchanged.

If you get a negative report here [in England], it's in the press. That drives pupils away, which in turn drives money away. (UNI 2)

The two Ofsted directors countered these arguments, emphasising that, through each iteration of the inspection framework, Ofsted has guided schools’ attention towards specific educational priorities, thereby driving system-wide improvement.

Inspectors are involved in system-wide change, not just change within an individual institution. The CIF had a strong focus on disadvantaged pupils, and suddenly all schools were taking clear notice of them. (OF1)

Building on that, one further pointed to evidence on inspection driving pupil performance in international standardised testing.

Our primary-age children are now the best readers in the Western world, following the country's adoption of evidence-based phonics approaches, which was reflected in the recent inspection framework [EIF 2019]. Our secondary-age children now rank 11th in PISA, up from 27th less than two decades ago. There is measurable impact. (OF 1)

One former HMI, now working as a consultant, underscored that whether improved student performance was a result of inspection or occurred despite it could be further debated.

A toolkit for school improvement or compliance?

Before the EIF 2025 was launched and the report cards published, nobody knew what the inspection practices would look like. One document that offered a glimpse into these practices and generated the most interest was the inspection toolkit. The toolkit provides grade-specific descriptors intended to support school leaders in self-assessment and in aligning practice with Ofsted's expectations. School leaders immediately perceived it as a guide to do ‘what Ofsted wants to see’, just as they had done before.

When a new framework is introduced, many leaders will restructure their senior leadership teams (SLTs). If there are currently no heads of inclusion, suddenly such roles will be introduced. The toolkit becomes a box-ticking exercise. Leaders believe that's the only thing worths prioritising. (HT 2)

Interestingly, one headteacher read between the lines to infer Ofsted's intentions for the toolkit and how schools would go above and beyond to execute these demands, illustrating a pronounced culture of compliance.

At the very top of it, in tiny writing, it says this document is intended for print use. Instantly, it gives this notion that you’re going to have it in front of you. You’d use it with all your SLT. You’d use it as part of your school self-evaluation; you’d use it to write your academy improvement plan. (HT1)

Though not a majority, one headteacher challenged this compliance mentality, suggesting that leaders should decide how to use the toolkit and determine what is best for the school.

Yes, a lot of school leaders will use it that way. I will resist the temptation. Actually, if you treat it as a tick box, it's not going to take you very far—it's all superficial. But that's when you get to the dividing line between poor and good leadership. Poor leaders think that their job is to survive Ofsted every few years. Good leaders think they will improve their school, whatever the framework. (HT10)

This view was further challenged by the fact that, even if a headteacher avoided using the toolkit as a box-ticking exercise, their academy trust would not. One headteacher compared the toolkit to a defensive mechanism rather than a school improvement tool, highlighting the performative nature of inspection.

For me, that's like managing a football team. If you’re a headteacher who uses that toolkit, that's like putting all 11 players between the goalposts. You can guarantee nothing will go in. But you’re not going to score any goals at the other end. (HT8)

A similar confusion surrounding the weighting of different inspection areas was raised again, along with uncertainty about how to interpret the interconnected aspects of school performance that are graded separately in the report card. The fear-driven compliance mentality of school leaders was clearly illustrated in the following quote, as they attempted to anticipate what the HMCI would want to see.

I don’t think we know what the weightings are. But from what Sir Martyn Oliver has been saying about achievement and knowing the emphasis he put on his schools in his previous trust, I’m sure achievement is the strongest one. (HT9)

Other participants noted that regardless of the actual weightings, different people would prioritise inspection areas they personally consider most important. For parents, this might be achievement, whereas for school leaders and governors, it could be leadership and governance.

That's just my feeling that achievement will have a higher premium going forward. As a parent, I’m thinking, where do I want my child to go? It doesn’t really matter to me if a school is developing its teaching; as long as their achievement is exemplary, they are doing something right. (NGA 2 and a parent)

Most participants agreed that Ofsted was well-intentioned in designing this toolkit. Less experienced leaders might find the detailed descriptors helpful in guiding their actions. Nonetheless, ensuring that these descriptors are interpreted, evidenced and judged with a high degree of consistency poses a longstanding challenge. Furthermore, one participant noted that the number of descriptors varies across grades, and they do not form a clear progression ladder. When asked how to use the toolkit, the two Ofsted directors refrained from answering for two reasons. First, the inspection toolkit and report card were still under consultation; second, they wished to hear the authentic voices of other stakeholders rather than dominate the discussion. However, one Ofsted director did clarify one point.

The toolkit was intended for school leaders and inspectors, whilst the report card was for parents and learners; hence, the two should be decoupled. (OF2)

Lessons from Scotland and Wales

All three inspectorates have either undergone, or are currently undergoing, significant reform. Similar to Ofsted's revisions to inspection framework, the How Good is Our School (4th edition) framework used in Scotland was due for its renewal. Estyn in Wales has removed summative gradings and adopted narrative-based inspection reports (Estyn, 2024a), an approach welcomed by both schools and parents. Changing the culture of inspection, particularly schools’ fear of being judged and left unsupported, was a major challenge that both Education Scotland/HMIE and Estyn sought to address. Central to this cultural shift was the explicit linking of inspection to school improvement.

The fact that Estyn has removed summative gradings is about changing the culture of inspection. We believe that a strong self-evaluation complemented by rigorous external evaluation from inspection will accelerate progress and improvement for learners. (WI 1)

In Scotland, inspection starts and ends with schools’ self-evaluation and an improvement plan, aiming to reduce fear of negative outcomes.

In Scotland, the focus of the inspection is on self-evaluation. Schools self-evaluate, and that forms the basis of the entire process. That's where it starts, and that's where it ends. So, it's probably more focused on the process rather than the outcome. (SI 1)

In England, the DfE previously commissioned a report examining high-stakes, outcome-based inspection versus low-stakes, process-oriented inspection (Greatbatch and Tate, 2019). This review informed the design of Ofsted's EIF 2019, which was subsequently criticised for its high-stakes, punitive nature. Several participants argued that Ofsted still faces a long journey toward meaningful cultural change, and that simply revising inspection frameworks is unlikely to achieve this.

The DfE reviewed different inspection systems in high performing countries. It seems to work best when inspection is part of a school improvement process rather than a snapshot in time. They’re not in any sense punitive, even though we know sometimes you have to do stuff that's not very pleasant. (UNI 3)

One tangible response to this challenge is the development of a multi-agency system around schools that simultaneously holds them to account and supports improvement.

Behaviour in Scottish schools is problematic. There's a teacher workload issue, mainly around additional needs students. We do have similar issues, but I don’t think we have the same response. We’ve got a strong focus on equity in the system. That drives policy. (SI 2)

A multi-agency system would require Ofsted to collaborate closely with the DfE, local authorities and academy trusts across the inspection–improvement cycle. While Scotland and Wales face similar challenges, such collaboration appears more readily established, largely because most schools remain under local authorities. By contrast, England's system is characterised by fragmented ownership resulting from marketisation. This helps explain why Ofsted directors perceived the inspectorate as an isolated entity, while school leaders’ job insecurity and experiences of punitive consequences are caused by other actors.

Ofsted doesn’t sack headteachers; trusts do, local authorities do, and chairs of governors do. It's not Ofsted. Many times, that may be an unfair staggering over-reaction. When there's a monitoring inspection, the trust can say, we’ve done something quite big. We’ve changed the leadership of the school. (OF2)

Participants also suggested that Ofsted consider incorporating peer inspectors—individuals with leadership or managerial roles in other schools—to join the inspection team as team inspectors. This practice could enhance transparency and provide school leaders with opportunities to better understand both the inspection process and the responsibilities of the inspector role.

All our models have peer inspectors. They undertake an assessed course, attend annual training and are then deployed as part of the team. Feedback shows that they considered it the best professional learning they’ve had. (WI 3)

Further suggestions included highlighting schools’ unique achievements in report cards even if they fall outside the inspection framework; allowing sufficient time to engage with parents, particularly those who are hard to reach and tailoring inspection reports to parents, learners and schools using age- and role-appropriate language with the help of AI.

Reconfigure Ofsted's identity

Viewed through a process-ontological lens, Ofsted constructs and continually reconstructs its identity through iterative cycles of framework design, piloting, consultation, implementation, contestation and revision (Tian, 2025a). Each cycle represents a moment of institutional becoming inseparable from Ofsted's histories and identities (Elias, 1978). These cycles cannot be meaningfully analysed in isolation from its history, as earlier frameworks shape both expectations and practices in the present (Tsoukas and Chia, 2002).

Our findings reveal that school practitioners have internalised Ofsted's surveillance. Initial responses to the EIF 2025 included restructuring SLTs to align with the new inspection domains and using the toolkit to anticipate what might appease inspectors. Ofsted's inspection frameworks function as a form of post-panoptical surveillance, subjecting schools to constant gazing, self-monitoring and self-discipline, even beyond the formal inspection cycle (Colman, 2021; Courtney, 2016). By requiring school practitioners to unlearn and relearn established practices, inspection frameworks function as powerful instruments through which Ofsted consolidates its authority as both regulator and evaluator (Tian, 2025b).

One pillar underpinning Ofsted's institutional identity has been its single-phrase judgements. For over three decades, schools in England have internalised these judgements, coming to define themselves through Ofsted's rating scale. Inspection grades are displayed on school websites, banners and letters to parents, carrying deep cultural significance for those immersed in the English inspection regime (Tsoukas and Chia, 2002). Although the EIF 2025 has removed single-phrase judgements, participants in our study expressed concern that this change may be largely superficial, as it does not fundamentally disrupt Ofsted's underlying evaluative logics. They anticipated that parents and school practitioners would prioritise certain domains and their associated grades over others, judging a school's performance based on the band into which most inspection areas fall. In this sense, a school's success, failure and legitimacy continue to be defined and certified by Ofsted.

The missing professional dialogue

Both Estyn and Education Scotland/HMIE have sought to embed professional dialogue within their inspection processes. In contrast, a major criticism of Ofsted concerns its fear-inducing, box-ticking approach, which involves rapidly collecting evidence within a 2-day inspection window (Camden, 2025). If Ofsted genuinely seeks to transform the culture of inspection, it must embed meaningful professional dialogue within the inspection process and recognise school leaders and teachers as equal knowledge contributors (Fricker, 2007).

Participants in our study noted that the proposed new framework and methodology did not specify the conditions under which equitable professional dialogue would occur. Instead, they worry that the EIF 2025 will constrain such opportunities. Under the previous ‘best fit’ model, schools were required to meet most of the criteria associated with a particular grade to receive that judgement. Under the EIF 2025, the new ‘secure fit’ model requires schools to meet all criteria associated with the ‘Expected Standard’ grade, after which inspectors determine whether additional evidence justifies an upgrade or a downgrade (Ofsted, 2025a, 2025b, 2025c). This leaves limited scope for inspectors’ professional discretion. Moreover, inspection toolkits can dominate school practices and evidence collection, limiting opportunities for professional dialogue beyond the framework.

More importantly, our findings suggest that while some school leaders may attempt to resist performative compliance in favour of authentic leadership, they remain subject to accountability pressures, as academy trusts or governing bodies may punish those who do not achieve strong inspection outcomes. Indeed, the two Ofsted directors acknowledged that some trusts may over-react by dismissing senior leadership in response to inspection results. However, they did not recognise that Ofsted holds significant epistemic authority over schools. The power of framework design, evidence collection, and grading rests solely with Ofsted, thereby marginalising other stakeholders as knowers (Fricker, 2007). To embed professional dialogue effectively within inspection, Ofsted should deliberately create structured opportunities before, during and after inspections to discuss school context, priorities, strengths, challenges, actionable next steps and available resources. The EIF 2025 should aim to foster professional dialogue rather than stifle it.

A multi-agent inspection–improvement approach

Our study showed that Education Scotland/HMIE and Estyn demonstrate how government, schools, inspectors, parents and learners can collaborate around shared educational goals. While Ofsted's emphasis on raising standards and improving lives may seem similar, the key difference lies in the power dynamics.

Ofsted treats stakeholders as separate entities. This entity-based ontology fails to recognise that Ofsted's decisions have spillover effects (Shotter, 2006). The two Ofsted directors emphasised that the inspectorate focuses on inspecting schools, while the DfE, local authorities and academy trusts act on these judgements. Ofsted publishes reports to inform parents and learners; however, school leaders in our study noted that many parents do not look beyond the colour-coded headline judgements, and that marginalised families remain invisible under the EIF 2025.

Scottish and Welsh inspection systems have been reformed to support an inspection–improvement process that goes beyond statutory compliance, emphasising strengths, stakeholder input and collaborative problem-solving. For schools in special measures, link inspectors work with school leaders and local authority advisors to drive improvement. Changing a culture of fear involves conducting inspections professionally and with due care. Reconfiguring an inspectorate's identity within the broader system requires time, and recent reforms by Education Scotland/HMIE and Estyn provide a promising precedent for Ofsted.