Improving the way Ofsted inspects education: a nasen response

The membership and community of nasen (The National Association for Special Educational Needs) is of the opinion that the working definition of an inclusive provider, as proposed by Ofsted, represents a significant step forward in embedding inclusion into the heart of the education system. For policymakers, this definition offers both a foundation and a challenge: it articulates a high-level vision that must now be translated into policy, practice, and measurable impact across diverse educational settings.   

Strengths of the Definition 

At its core, the working definition rightly identifies inclusion as a systemic responsibility rather than a discrete intervention. It recognises that inclusive practice must go beyond special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) to encompass the full spectrum of learner diversity. This is a welcome shift, as it avoids pigeonholing inclusion as a niche concern and instead frames it as a universal expectation for all education providers. 

A particularly important strength is the emphasis on leadership. By asserting that inclusion starts with senior leaders—who set the tone, allocate resources, and shape organisational culture—the definition affirms that inclusive education is not a bolt-on, but an integral part of strategic planning. This leadership emphasis aligns well with current policy directions that foreground accountability and school improvement through strong, values-driven governance. 

The inclusion of terms like "high expectations," "adaptiveness," and "success in all its forms" reflects a commendable attempt to move away from deficit-based models. These terms signal a commitment to personalised pathways that recognise varied starting points and celebrate progress across academic, social, and emotional domains. 

Areas for Development 

Despite its many strengths, the definition also raises several concerns that warrant reflection. 

Firstly, while the universal framing is powerful, there is a risk that SEND—arguably the most visible and measurable area of inclusion—could become diluted in practice. While it is vital that inclusion is broadened, more specific provisions for learners with SEND must not become lost in generalities. 

Secondly – while acknowledging that this is an interim report, and therefore will not provide full detail – there remains a lack of clarity around assessment and accountability. The sector is keen to understand specifically how inclusive practice will be meaningfully evaluated? And whether Ofsted inspections, performance data, and funding formulas will be adjusted to support schools that take bold, flexible approaches to inclusion—even if those approaches result in less traditional data patterns? These are not peripheral questions but fundamental policy concerns that require clear guidance. 

The concerns about inspector consistency are particularly salient. Inclusion cannot be reliably measured unless inspectors are equipped with a shared understanding and training that aligns with the definition. Without this, schools may feel vulnerable to misjudgement, especially if their inclusive practices challenge traditional academic hierarchies or require innovation outside of established norms. 

To give this definition meaningful traction, therefore, the membership and community of nasen would advocate that policymakers must consider several levers of change: 

1. Guidance and Clarification: Supporting documents must unpack the definition with examples, case studies, and frameworks that show what inclusive provision looks like across phases and contexts. 

2. Inspection Reform: Updated Ofsted frameworks should reflect the full breadth of inclusive practice, including social, emotional, and long-term outcomes. Inspector training is essential. 

3. Professional Development: Inclusion must be woven into leadership training, teacher CPD, and initial teacher education—not as an afterthought, but as a foundational element of effective practice. 

4. Funding and Resources: Flexibility in provision requires flexible funding. Policy must recognise and support the cost of adaptive spaces, personalised learning, and integrated services. 

5. Data Reform: Accountability systems should reward inclusive practice, not penalise schools for lower ‘headline’ outcomes when they are doing the complex, long-term work of transforming life chances. 

6. Cross-sector Alignment: Inclusion cannot stop at the school gate. Alignment across health, social care, and community services is vital to deliver wraparound support and reduce fragmentation. 

The working definition of an inclusive provider is a bold and promising foundation for a more equitable education system. However, to realise its potential, policymakers must invest in infrastructure, training, and accountability systems that reflect its values. This is not simply about language; it is about system redesign. Inclusion, done well, benefits all learners—and with the right policy environment, it can become the norm rather than the aspiration. 

As the education sector faces a potential shift in the school inspection framework, it is imperative that policymakers take a proactive and nuanced approach to mitigating unintended consequences—especially for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). History has shown that even well-intentioned reforms can have unforeseen effects, often increasing workload for educators and marginalising the most vulnerable learners. This is particularly true when changes are implemented without a comprehensive understanding of the systemic, contextual, and human factors at play. 

1. Recognising the impact of change on workload and school culture 

Change, even when positive in its intent, imposes an inevitable workload on schools. New inspection criteria, grading language, or frameworks can lead to a “tick-box” mentality, where compliance is prioritised over meaningful improvement. This is often exacerbated by a lack of clarity around expectations, particularly in relation to inclusive practice. 

Any change to inspection processes must be supported by clear, accessible guidance and transitional support, including time, training, and resources. Additionally, schools should be consulted and involved in piloting new frameworks to allow for iterative adjustments based on real-world feedback. 

2. Preventing unintended exclusion of vulnerable learners 

One of the gravest risks identified by our members is the potential return to a system that devalues inclusive education. When attainment and achievement are measured narrowly and equally weighted, there is a risk that learners who may not attain in traditional ways—especially those with SEND—are marginalised, off-rolled, or made to feel unwelcome. 

To combat this, the inspection framework must prioritise progress from starting points, not just raw outcomes. Inspectors must be trained to recognise the complex and diverse journeys of SEND learners and to appreciate the value of inclusive education, even when it does not result in easily quantifiable outcomes. 

3. Ensuring consistency and equity in inspection judgments 

Concerns have been voiced about the subjectivity and inconsistency in how inspections are conducted—particularly regarding the interpretation of terms such as "strong" or "exemplary." These terms can become problematic if they are not underpinned by clearly defined, shared standards that account for the diversity of school contexts. 

Reducing the number of grading categories, or refining the descriptors to reflect inclusive intent, could help minimise inconsistent judgments. Furthermore, standardised and comprehensive training for inspectors—grounded in inclusive practice and SEND awareness—is crucial. Without it, even the best-designed frameworks will falter in implementation. 

4. Contextual understanding must be central 

An inspection is a snapshot, but a child’s education is a journey. Inspectors must be supported to understand the context in which a school operates, including the socio-economic environment, access to resources, and community challenges. For example, a school serving a high proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds or with complex needs will face different challenges than a more affluent or resourced counterpart. 

This contextual understanding should not be a peripheral consideration—it should be embedded into the core of the inspection process, and inspectors must be trained to probe, interpret, and respond to these dynamics sensitively and fairly. 

5. Humanising the inspection process 

Too often, inspection processes can feel dehumanising to both staff and students. Some schools report the same group of “coached” students being presented during inspections, creating a false sense of representation.  

To address this, inspectors should engage with a wider and more representative range of pupils, ideally in informal ways before classroom observations, to develop authentic insights. This approach not only improves the validity of the inspection but also fosters a more collaborative and trusting relationship between schools and inspection bodies. 

In essence, change in the inspection framework must not be driven solely by performance metrics or accountability. It must be rooted in equity, inclusion, and a commitment to the holistic development of all learners, especially the most vulnerable. Policymakers have an opportunity—and a responsibility—to ensure that new systems are developed with the voices of educators, learners, and communities at their heart. 

Among the membership and community of nasen (The National Association for Special Educational Needs), there is strong consensus that incorporating data into report cards can be valuable, especially when it reflects how well children and learners achieve. There is also a belief that such data should account for learners’ individual starting points and context to ensure fairness and relevance. 

Concerns around the nature of data have been flagged. Several members emphasised that the definition of "data" should go beyond academic attainment and include aspects such as wellbeing and personal development. The question of clarity on what constitutes data—whether it refers strictly to numerical measures or also qualitative elements such as case studies or examples of pupil experience – has also been raised. 

There was a shared concern that over-reliance on attainment data—such as "working below" statements—can be damaging and uninformative, particularly for learners with SEND.  

We have heard concerns over the risk of creating additional workload for schools. There was a clear warning against returning to past practices where schools generated excessive documentation purely for inspection purposes. Our belief is that members should be encouraged to work with schools to understand the kinds of evidence already being used internally, potentially integrating those examples into toolkits or guidance without imposing new documentation requirements. 

There has been lively debate in our community over the value of case studies. While many agree they can effectively illustrate progress in non-academic areas, others feel that they risk becoming burdensome and overly formalised if not carefully managed to avoid overcomplication or overproduction. 

Lastly, there is recognition of the complexity of measuring non-academic progress and a call for inspection frameworks to be mindful not to overwhelm schools with unrealistic expectations across too many areas within short inspection windows. 

Among the membership and community of nasen, there is a general sense that the move from a 4-point to a 5-point scale doesn’t represent a significant shift in practice or perception. While the addition of another point might appear to add nuance, many felt it’s still essentially just a scale—whether 4 or 5 points—where schools are placed somewhere between best and worst. 

The core concern we heard was around the meaning behind the chosen descriptors like “exemplary” or “causing concern.” These words can carry different connotations depending on who’s interpreting them—be it school staff, parents, or other stakeholders. Without a clear, consistent, and commonly understood definition of what each level really means in practice, there’s a risk that the scale becomes more about semantics than substance. 

Others noted a risk that the scale could continue to encourage short-termism—schools striving to “move up” the scale, possibly at the expense of longer-term, meaningful improvements for pupils with SEND. This kind of performative progress could undermine deeper, more sustainable developments that are rooted in a school’s specific context. 

There was also a strong feeling that if Ofsted is to be a vehicle for school improvement—not just judgment—it must go beyond scoring and provide supportive, developmental feedback. Judgments should be paired with clear, constructive guidance tailored to the school’s setting, ideally recognising external factors like the availability of local services or support from multi-academy trusts (MATs), which can greatly affect outcomes. 

In short, while the 5-point scale might be a step away from the overly simplistic single-word judgments, its effectiveness will depend entirely on how it’s implemented, communicated, and used to support—not just grade—schools. 

In developing more effective and inclusive inspection frameworks, it is vital that we identify metrics that reflect the lived experiences of pupils and families, and that help schools evaluate the true impact of their inclusive practice. Two key metrics emerged strongly from our consultation with the nasen community as particularly valuable for inspectors to consider: pupil and parent/carer voice, and attendance data with deeper contextual analysis. 

1. Pupil and parent/carer voice 

Capturing the voice of children and their families is not only central to inclusive education, but also reflects broader commitments to co-production and person-centred practice. This metric goes beyond simply gathering opinions—it must consider the impact of those voices on school decision-making and improvement. 

Practitioners highlighted that feedback often comes from two extremes—those with very positive or very negative experiences—resulting in a skewed picture. As such, a robust metric should include mechanisms for collecting a broad and representative range of perspectives. Furthermore, it should evaluate how schools respond to this input, and what tangible changes have resulted. Understanding how leadership values and acts on the voice of SEND learners and their families is crucial for assessing both culture and practice. 

2. Attendance 

While attendance is a long-established metric, stakeholders advocated for a more nuanced use of this data. Instead of surface-level figures, inspectors should be encouraged to ask: 

• Where are the pupils who are not present? 

• What provision is in place for them? 

• How does this fit into their overall educational experience? 

This approach enables inspectors to uncover hidden exclusions, identify learners who may be on part-time timetables or attending alternative provision, and assess whether these arrangements are inclusive, appropriate, and regularly reviewed. It also links closely to safeguarding and wellbeing concerns, ensuring all pupils are visible within the system. 

3. Other important areas raised included: 

• Professional Development: Evaluating how all staff are equipped through CPD to deliver inclusive teaching. 

• Extracurricular Access: Understanding participation of learners with SEND in wraparound and enrichment activities. 

• Specialist Resource Provisions: Inspecting whether such provisions are integrated or operating as isolated “bolt-ons”. 

• Transitions and Admissions: Considering how schools manage transitions and support SEND learners through changes in setting or phase. 

These metrics collectively provide a more holistic picture of inclusion in schools. They place emphasis not just on structures and processes, but on experiences, outcomes, and systemic responsiveness.

Ensuring that all children and young people feel a sense of belonging and are supported to achieve their full potential lies at the heart of inclusive education. In order to promote equity and high standards across the education system, the membership and community of nasen (The National Association for Special Educational Needs) believes it is critical to understand both the features of effective inclusive practice and the potential unintended consequences that changes to inspection frameworks can bring. 

One of the most salient insights emerging from the sector is that inclusive education must be measured not only by what is visible on inspection days, but by who is present—and who is not. Schools that truly embody inclusive values often engage with children and families whose needs may challenge conventional norms. As one participant in our online focus group noted, “Inclusion starts "at the door"—it is about how welcoming a school is to all prospective students, especially those with complex needs. Policies and frameworks must consider children who never made it through the gates, perhaps because of perceived or actual barriers to entry.”. 

We have heard concerns that some schools may be incentivised to appear inclusive through documentation or carefully managed inspection days, while quietly discouraging or off-rolling students who might impact performance indicators. If inspection frameworks place too much weight on standardised attainment without accounting for school context and cohort complexity, they may unintentionally disincentivise the admission or support of students with additional needs. 

Risk here can be mitigated by promoting accountability systems that reward genuine inclusion rather than performative compliance. This means encouraging inspection criteria that include evidence of access, presence, and belonging—not just academic outcomes. For example, policy could require or support the use of contextualised data: admission figures for children with SEND, rates of exclusion and part-time timetables, and parent and pupil voice metrics that show how feedback is used to drive improvement. 

Equally vital is ensuring that inspection frameworks recognise the full journey of a school. Our members have highlighted concerns that aspirational but subjective grading language—terms like "exemplary" or "strong"—can disadvantage schools making real, albeit incremental, progress in inclusive practice. A school on the path to embedding inclusion, especially in a high-need community, should be celebrated for its direction of travel, not penalised for not yet achieving idealised outcomes. As such, policy should support inspection frameworks that balance ambition with realism, ensuring fair recognition of progress over time. 

Training for inspectors also emerged as a priority area. The effectiveness of any inspection framework ultimately depends on the expertise and consistency of those applying it. We must ensure robust and ongoing training in inclusive education principles, neurodiversity, trauma-informed practice, and cultural competence, so that inspectors can make fair, informed judgments grounded in the lived realities of diverse school communities. 

Finally, consideration should be given to how to embed relational and humanising elements into inspection processes. Encouraging inspectors to speak with pupils informally prior to structured interviews, for example, can provide more authentic insights into the student experience. Fostering these kinds of practices would support a richer, more accurate understanding of school culture and climate. 

In conclusion, as inspection frameworks evolve, there is a critical opportunity to shape a system that champions genuine inclusion. This requires careful calibration of evaluation criteria, safeguards against perverse incentives, and a deep commitment to equity. By embedding inclusive values into both the intent and mechanics of school accountability, policy can ensure that all learners are visible, valued, and supported to thrive.