Ofsted’s Inclusion Judgment: A step forward or a risky detour?

 

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)