
Ofsted chief inspector apologises for short notice on school inspection reforms
School leaders' unions have threatened to tell their members to quit as Ofsted inspectors unless changes are made to the timescale for inspection reform.
Speaking at the Festival of Education, Sir Martyn Oliver, chief inspector of Ofsted, said he was 'sorry' about the delayed timescale as he acknowledged it was 'difficult' for schools.
At the event at Wellington College, Berkshire, Sir Martyn called on school leaders to 'judge' him on the Ofsted's revised inspection model once it is published at the start of the academic year.
Last year, the Government announced that headline Ofsted grades for overall effectiveness for schools in England would be scrapped.
Previously, Ofsted awarded one of four single-phrase inspection judgments: outstanding, good, requires improvement and inadequate
Under proposed report cards, set out in February, schools could be graded across at least eight areas of a provision using a colour-coded five-point scale.
They would receive ratings, from the red 'causing concern' to orange 'attention needed', through the green shades of 'secure', 'strong' and 'exemplary' for each area of practice.
During the Q&A session at the event on Thursday, Sir Martyn suggested that Ofsted ratings can alter local house prices by thousands of pounds because parents 'value' them.
When asked whether Ofsted's new report cards could affect house prices, Sir Martyn said: 'Well, I don't know.'
But Sir Martyn, who used to be an academy trust leader, spoke of how he had supported two 'special measures' schools where he lived and the house prices 'shot up' after they received better Ofsted ratings.
He told the audience: 'They were both in special measures, both went outstanding, and the house prices went up £15,000 within a week.
'It does make a difference.'
Sir Martyn added that 'parents obviously put a value on it'.
Ofsted had planned to publish its formal response to its consultation on proposed inspection reforms in the summer term ahead of the changes coming into effect in November.
But Ofsted will now publish its full response in September due to the scale of the feedback it received.
When asked whether this delay was fair on school leaders, Sir Martyn said: 'I think that is difficult and again I'm sorry about that.'
On single-word judgments, he added: 'We've been doing something for 30-plus years in a single way.
'If I look at my phone, there will be pictures of people standing in front of their schools with balloons, with an O, an U, with a T – 'outstanding', and local newspapers up and down the country celebrate.
'It happens all of the time, and we're about to take that away and change it to something else that for more than three decades people are used to.'
Sir Martyn said: 'Here's a burning question, what's Rightmove going to do?'
Currently, Rightmove includes the Ofsted ratings for local schools in its listings for houses for sale.
In a speech at the event, Sir Martyn said children are increasingly receiving life lessons from influencers or 'AI-generated summaries'.
The Ofsted boss argued that classroom learning with human interaction 'has never been more important' as many children spend much of their lives online.
He said: 'Young people are growing up in an increasingly curated world in which their favoured influencers or corporate algorithms can have a disproportionate impression on their views and opinions.
'It's more important than ever that young people are able to lift their eyes from the screen and connect with their teachers, in person.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Leader Live
37 minutes ago
- Leader Live
High Court judge refuses to temporarily block Palestine Action terror ban
Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from banning the group as a terrorist organisation before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. The move is set to come into force at midnight after a High Court judge refused Ms Ammori's bid for a temporary block. Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Lawyers for Ms Ammori were also refused permission to appeal and were told to go to the Court of Appeal itself. Shortly after the decision was handed down, Ms Ammori said that she would be 'seeking an urgent appeal to try to prevent a dystopian nightmare of the Government's making'. She added: 'The Home Secretary is rushing through the implementation of the proscription at midnight tonight despite the fact that our legal challenge is ongoing and that she has been completely unclear about how it will be enforced, leaving the public in the dark about their rights to free speech and expression after midnight tonight when this proscription comes into effect. 'Hundreds of thousands of people across the country have expressed support for Palestine Action by joining our mailing list, following and sharing our social media content and signing petitions, and many, including iconic figures like Sally Rooney, say they will continue to declare 'we are all Palestine Action' and speak out against this preposterous proscription, demonstrating how utterly unworkable it will be.' In a 26-page judgment, Mr Justice Chamberlain said that 'some of the consequences feared by the claimant and others who have given evidence are overstated'. He continued: 'It will remain lawful for the claimant and other persons who were members of Palestine Action prior to proscription to continue to express their opposition to Israel's actions in Gaza and elsewhere, including by drawing attention to what they regard as Israel's genocide and other serious violations of international law. 'They will remain legally entitled to do so in private conversations, in print, on social media and at protests.' He added: 'That said, there is no doubt that there will be serious consequences if the order comes into effect immediately and interim relief is refused.' The proposal was approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords earlier this week and would make membership and support for the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Some 81 organisations are already proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Hamas, al Qaida and National Action. At a hearing on Friday, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, asked the court to suspend the 'ill-considered' and 'authoritarian abuse of statutory power' until a hearing due around July 21. Mr Husain told the London court: 'This is the first time in our history that a direct action civil disobedience group, which does not advocate for violence, has been sought to be proscribed as terrorists.' The barrister said that his client had been 'inspired' by a long history of direct action in the UK, 'from the suffragettes, to anti-apartheid activists, to Iraq war activists'. The hearing later in July is expected to deal with whether Ms Ammori can bring a High Court challenge over the planned proscription. Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that there was no 'express provision' to protect lawyers representing her in the potential legal challenge from criminal consequences if the ban came into effect. She also said that if the ban came into effect the harm would be 'far-reaching', could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh later named Normal People author Sally Rooney, who lives abroad and 'fears the ramifications for her, for her work, for her books, for her programmes' if she shows support for Palestine Action. 'Is the Prime Minister going to denounce her, an Irish artist, as a supporter of a proscribed organisation?' 'Will that have ramifications for her with the BBC, etc?' Ms Ni Ghralaigh asked. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the High Court there was an 'insuperable hurdle' in the bid to temporarily block the ban of Palestine Action. The barrister also said that if a temporary block was granted, it would be a 'serious disfigurement of the statutory regime'. He said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Friday's hearing comes after an estimated £7 million worth of damage was caused to two Voyager planes at RAF Brize Norton on June 20, in an action claimed by Palestine Action. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. Mr Justice Chamberlain said that an assessment on whether to ban the group had been made as early as March, and 'preceded' the incident at RAF Brize Norton. Four people were charged in connection with the incident.

Leader Live
37 minutes ago
- Leader Live
What is a proscribed organisation?
On Thursday the House of Lords backed proscribing the group under the Terrorism Act 2000 without a vote. But what is proscription and what does it mean for an organisation to be proscribed? – What is a proscribed organisation? According to the Government website, under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if they believe it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do so. Under the law this means the organisation commits or takes part in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism), or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Once an organisation is proscribed it is illegal to join or show support for it. – What does terrorism mean when talking about proscription? As defined in the Act, terrorism means the use or threat of action which involves serious violence against a person, involves serious damage to property, endangers a person's life (other than that of the person committing the act), creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or section of the public or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. The definition also sets out that the use or threat of such action must be designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public. Additionally, it must be undertaken for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. – What factors are taken into consideration when determining whether proscription is proportionate? According to the Government website, the Home Secretary will take into account the nature and scale of an organisation's activities, the specific threat that it poses to the country, and the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas. The Home Secretary will also consider the extent of the organisation's presence in the UK, and the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. – Which other groups have been designated as proscribed organisations? There are currently 81 international terrorist groups proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 and 14 organisations in Northern Ireland proscribed under previous legislation. The most recent proscription orders concerned Hamas, the Wagner Group, Hizb ut Tahrir and Terrorgram. Other organisations on the list include Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), and various aliases, and al Qaida. – Once an organisation is proscribed, what becomes illegal? It becomes a criminal offence to belong, or profess to belong, to a proscribed organisation in the UK or overseas, or invite support for a proscribed organisation. It is also illegal to express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation, express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation. Other offences include arranging, managing or assisting in arranging or managing a meeting in the knowledge that the meeting is to support or further the activities of a proscribed organisation. It is also an offence to wear clothing or carry or display articles in public in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, or publish an image of an item of clothing or other article, such as a flag or logo, in the same circumstances. – Once proscribed, will an organisation remain banned forever? No. The Home Secretary will consider deproscription on application only. The law allows any organisation or any person affected by a proscription to submit a signed, written application to the Home Secretary requesting that they consider whether a specified organisation should be removed from the list of proscribed organisations.

Leader Live
37 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Some consequences of Palestine Action ban ‘overstated', says High Court judge
Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from banning the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. Judge Mr Justice Chamberlain refused to grant the temporary block, finding there was a 'strong public interest in maintaining the order in force'. Lawyers for Palestine Action will now make a last-minute bid at the Court of Appeal to challenge this decision, as the ban is expected to come into force at midnight. In a 26-page judgment, Mr Justice Chamberlain said that 'some of the consequences feared by the claimant and others who have given evidence are overstated' if the temporary block was refused, but a later challenge against the ban succeeded. He continued: 'It will remain lawful for the claimant and other persons who were members of Palestine Action prior to proscription to continue to express their opposition to Israel's actions in Gaza and elsewhere, including by drawing attention to what they regard as Israel's genocide and other serious violations of international law. 'They will remain legally entitled to do so in private conversations, in print, on social media and at protests.' He added: 'It follows that it is hyperbole to talk of the claimant or others being 'gagged' in this respect, as the claimant has alleged. 'They could not incur criminal liability based on their past association with a group which was not proscribed at the time. 'That said, there is no doubt that there will be serious consequences if the order comes into effect immediately and interim relief is refused.' The judge later said that if people choose to continue to express support for Palestine Action post-proscription, they may face criminal consequences, adding: 'This, however, is the intended effect of the order. It is how it achieves its aim of disrupting the activities of the proscribed organisation.' The proposal to ban the group was approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords earlier this week and would make membership and support for the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Some 81 organisations are already proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Hamas, al Qaida and National Action. At the High Court hearing on Friday, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, asked the court to suspend the 'ill-considered' and 'authoritarian abuse of statutory power' until a hearing in the wider legal challenge, due around July 21. The hearing later in July is expected to deal with whether Ms Ammori can bring a High Court challenge over the planned proscription. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the High Court there was an 'insuperable hurdle' in the bid to temporarily block the banning of the group, adding it could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Following the High Court's decision on Friday, Ms Ammori said: 'The Home Secretary is rushing through the implementation of the proscription at midnight tonight despite the fact that our legal challenge is ongoing and that she has been completely unclear about how it will be enforced, leaving the public in the dark about their rights to free speech and expression after midnight tonight when this proscription comes into effect. 'Hundreds of thousands of people across the country have expressed support for Palestine Action by joining our mailing list, following and sharing our social media content and signing petitions, and many, including iconic figures like Sally Rooney, say they will continue to declare 'we are all Palestine Action' and speak out against this preposterous proscription, demonstrating how utterly unworkable it will be.'