Ofsted’s decision to introduce a standalone ‘Inclusion’
judgement in its new framework sounds like a win for equity on paper. After
all, making inclusion a front-and-centre priority sends a strong message about
valuing all learners. But dig a little deeper, and it’s clear that this
well-intentioned move could actually create perverse incentives that pull
schools away from true inclusivity.
Even more concerning, the framework is being rolled out
before the government has actually defined what inclusion should
look like. This means Ofsted is essentially setting the standard before
national policy catches up, a move that could shape school decision-making in
ways we haven’t yet anticipated.
Ofsted’s new approach breaks down school evaluations into
separate judgements, one for ‘achievement’ and one for ‘inclusion.’ But here’s
the problem: schools are still ultimately judged on results, and the pressure
to maintain strong academic outcomes might push some to prioritise performance
over real inclusion.
Let’s be blunt, schools have been accused of off-rolling
vulnerable students before, and this framework doesn’t necessarily remove that
risk. Instead, it creates a scenario where inclusion and academic success could
feel like competing priorities, rather than two sides of the same coin. Schools
may start gaming the system by subtly shifting away from admitting or fully
supporting pupils with additional needs to protect their achievement ratings.
Inclusion isn’t a department, a programme, or a standalone
metric; it should run through everything a school does. But by isolating it as
its own judgement, the framework risks reducing it to a box-ticking exercise,
rather than embedding it into every aspect of school life.
A quick scan of the school inspection toolkit shows some
references to inclusion across other areas like curriculum and leadership, but
not enough to ensure it’s truly integrated. If inclusion isn’t central to the
way teaching, learning, behaviour, and leadership are assessed, then schools
might focus on ‘looking inclusive’ rather than actually being inclusive.
By rolling out this framework before the government has
locked down its definition of inclusion, Ofsted is effectively leading the
conversation on what ‘good’ looks like. That might not sound like a bad thing,
but it means schools are being pushed to meet an undefined standard that could
shift later. This creates uncertainty and risks schools making short-term,
compliance-driven decisions rather than embedding meaningful, long-term
inclusive practice.
In short: if we don’t know what great inclusion looks like
yet, how can schools be judged on it fairly?
The Impact on Small Schools
Small schools are set to be disproportionately affected by
this framework. With fewer pupils, their achievement data is more volatile; one
or two students with additional needs can significantly skew their results. If
inclusion and achievement are judged separately, small schools may feel forced
to make impossible choices: commit to being truly inclusive and risk lower
achievement scores or prioritise academic outcomes at the expense of
inclusivity.
However, it is critical to highlight that not all pupils
with SEND or additional needs are lower achieving. In fact, many excel
academically, and it is within this group that we can find some of the best
examples of how strong, inclusive practice supports both academic achievement
and good progress. The focus should not just be on perceived deficits but on
identifying and scaling up the 'bright spots' of effective inclusion that
enable all pupils, regardless of need, to thrive.
We already know that small schools often excel at creating
close-knit, inclusive environments, but they have less flexibility in
redistributing resources and support. Without safeguards, this framework could
unintentionally discourage small schools from admitting pupils with high levels
of need, leading to a further concentration of SEND provision in certain
schools and deepening existing inequalities.
Additionally, this separation of inclusion and achievement
could lead to unintended consequences for parents of children with SEND.
Parents may be faced with difficult decisions when choosing a school,
particularly if a school has been rated as 'exemplary' in achievement but has
lower outcomes for inclusion, or vice versa. This could result in families
avoiding schools that appear to prioritise results over inclusivity, or
conversely, choosing schools with strong inclusion ratings but weaker academic
outcomes. In turn, this could further polarise schools and exacerbate existing
inequities in education.
Despite these concerns, credit where it’s due, Ofsted
putting inclusion in the spotlight is a move in the right direction. Ensuring
schools are properly held to account for supporting all learners, particularly
the most vulnerable, is essential. But for this to work, inclusion needs to be
a golden thread running through every judgement, not a standalone checkbox.
If we want real, meaningful change, we need the right
foundations first. That means defining what ‘exemplary’ inclusion actually
looks like before holding schools to it, ensuring that all aspects of school
life reflect inclusive practice, and protecting small schools from being
unfairly penalised.
The new framework is an attempt to balance standards with
inclusivity, but in its current form, it risks driving schools towards
surface-level compliance rather than deep, systemic change. Inclusion and
achievement can’t be competing priorities; they have to be embedded together.
Instead of carving out inclusion as its own category, let’s
integrate it into every aspect of school evaluation. And before we judge
schools on ‘exemplary’ inclusion, let’s make sure we actually know what that
means.
(Also, It still looks like a Nando’s spice board)
