What can schools learn from 921 inspection outcomes?
Of 921 full inspections, 210 schools (22.8%) were below the expected standard for curriculum and teaching. This rate ranged from 11.8% in the least deprived IDACI qunitle to 26.1% in the most deprived, although the pattern differed between primary and secondary schools.
Ofsted’s latest statistics (12 August 2026) show that curriculum and teaching is one of the weaker areas within the renewed inspection framework. Just 17% of schools inspected were judged strong or exceptional, while 22% required attention or urgent improvement. Compare this with personal development and well-being, where approximately 42% were judged strong or exceptional and only 6% fell below the expected standard (Source).
| Grade | Schools | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Urgent improvement | 22 | 2.39% |
| Needs attention | 188 | 20.41% |
| Expected standard | 555 | 60.26% |
| Strong standard | 150 | 16.29% |
| Exceptional | 6 | 0.65% |
| Total | 921 | 100% |
The full outcomes are below:
Curriculum, teaching and achievement appear closely connected
Ofsted reports that 80% of schools received the same grade for curriculum and teaching as they did for achievement. Curriculum and teaching also matched leadership and governance in 80% of inspections. This does not prove that one causes the other, but it does raise some interesting questions about the relationships between curriculum quality, classroom practice, leadership and pupil achievement. My immediate questions are:
- What features repeatedly appear in reports where curriculum and teaching is judged strong?
- What language appears repeatedly where curriculum and teaching needs attention? (see past analysis)
- Are inspectors really observing retrieval, checking for understanding, modelling, questioning and adaptive teaching during inspection?
- Does the pattern differ between primary and secondary schools?
- Most importantly, does deprivation predict inspection outcomes after controlling for phase? Ofsted refuses to answer this question.
Interestingly, 73% of schools received different grades across the six core inspection areas, while only 27% received the same grade across all six. I think this is an encouraging indication that the renewed framework is producing a more differentiated picture of schools rather than simply recreating one overall judgement six times.
There is also a notable phase difference in attendance and behaviour. Eighty-seven per cent (87%) of primary schools reached the expected standard or above, compared with 78% of secondary schools.
What is worth investigating?
The published percentages are useful, but the more interesting work starts when we look beneath the headline statistics. For example:
- Which schools are represented in the 22% below the expected standard for curriculum and teaching?
- How does deprivation interact with phase and inspection outcomes?
- What distinguishes curriculum and teaching judged strong from that judged merely expected?
- What happens in the 20% of schools where curriculum and teaching and achievement receive different grades?
- Which characteristics repeatedly appear in the strongest inspection reports?
| Phase | n | Urgent | Needs attention | Expected | Strong | Exceptional | Below expected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nursery | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Primary | 685 | 13 | 141 | 420 | 109 | 2 | 22.48% |
| Secondary | 190 | 5 | 39 | 109 | 33 | 4 | 23.16% |
| Special | 35 | 2 | 8 | 20 | 5 | 0 | 28.57% |
| Alternative provision | 10 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 20.0% |
These are the questions I will explore in the future.
It is also worth noting that the 921 full inspections represent only around 4% of state-funded schools. Schools with weaker prior outcomes are inspected more frequently, and the first 125 schools inspected under the renewed framework volunteered to participate. My final question is:
If deprivation is associated with inspection outcomes, how much of an inspection judgement reflects school quality and how much reflects the socio-economic circumstances in which the school operates?
Whilst Ofsted does not provide much deprivation data, it does provide the variables needed to calculate by phase, IDACI quintile, curriculum and teaching, and achievement. I’ve managed to put this together:
| IDACI quintile | Meaning | n | Below expected | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Least deprived | 161 | 19 | 11.80% |
| 2 | 152 | 38 | 25.00% | |
| 3 | 187 | 44 | 23.53% | |
| 4 | 182 | 47 | 25.82% | |
| 5 | Most deprived | 238 | 62 | 26.05% |
What I can understand from this data, is that the most deprived group was 14.25 percentage points more likely to receive a below-expected curriculum and teaching judgement than the least deprived group: 26.05% versus 11.80%.
This equates to approximately 2.2 times higher, with quintiles two to five relatively similar, but with a favourable result for quintile one (least deprived). For secondary schools, the difference is fairly stark, but more balanced across primary schools vs IDACI.
| IDACI quintile | n | Below expected |
|---|---|---|
| 1—least deprived | 30 | 10.00% |
| 2 | 26 | 15.38% |
| 3 | 40 | 22.50% |
| 4 | 38 | 26.32% |
| 5—most deprived | 56 | 32.14% |
The bombshell is not that deprivation affects outcomes; it is that the new Ofsted inspection system still claims to judge the quality of education, but may also be grading the poverty of the pupils a school serves without acknowledging it.