Following consultation from FIN members through working groups and surveys, FIN submitted our response to Ofsted’s consultation on 28th April 2025. We are proud to be a voice for our members, shaping the way Ofsted inspects education in the FE and Skills sector.
Please read our full submission below.
Improving the Way Ofsted Inspects Education FIN Response to Ofsted Consultation – April 2025
Introduction
The Fellowship of Inspection Nominees (FIN) has supported the FE and skills sector with a focus on quality for over six years. During that time, we have worked with the Common Inspection Framework, saw the introduction of the Education Inspection
Framework and are now again at the front line with regard to new inspection methodology. We have enjoyed a very positive and productive relationship with Ofsted and continue to do so.
FIN collaborated with Ofsted, carried out surveys across its membership and heldforums across the sector in contributing to the Big Listen. FIN was subsequently quoted in ‘Hearing feedback, accepting criticism and building a better Ofsted: the response to the Big Listen’, published in September 2024, including our call that 5 days’ notice of an inspection should be given to providers of all sizes. Following Ofsted’s clear willingness to listen to the views of the professional bodies, FIN has undertaken a very careful review of the proposed inspection toolkit in contributing to the latest consultation.
Proposal 1: Report Cards
Question: What do you think of our proposed 5-point scale for reporting our inspection findings?
To inform our response to the further education and skills (FES) part of the Ofsted consultation, FIN held three roundtable discussions with its members and one with UVAC whose HEI members offer higher and degree level apprenticeships. FIN met with six employer providers and two specialist colleges and one sixth form. UVAC will submit its own response but our submission includes shared views as some universities are members of both bodies. FIN is very grateful that Dr Richard Beynon HMI attended one of the roundtables to explain Ofsted’s thinking behind the proposed reforms.
As with previous consultations, FIN conducted in April 2025 a survey of its and UVAC’s members on the reforms and the survey results are included in this response. To start with, nearly three-quarters (73%) of FIN and UVAC members agree that Ofsted has provided good information and drafts for the purpose of the consultation.
Report Cards and Evaluation Areas
Our survey shows strong support for report cards, but with conditions. A substantial majority of respondents are supportive but are concerned that inspectors will inconsistently differentiate between Secure and Strong, especially across different
programmes.
For providers undertaking self-assessment, making this differentiation may also be challenging. During a test exercise in one of the FIN roundtables, members were invited to identify differences between strong and secure. Many were unable to differentiate between the statements – suggesting that accurate self-assessment would be impossible.
As report cards will be the only written output from inspections, FIN members seek assurance that the accompanying narrative will be sufficient to justify the grades.
It is vital that Ofsted reports are useful for employers and prospective employers.
On evaluation areas for catering to diverse learner needs, we believe that inspectors should be looking at broader outcomes, such as a learner’s personal development from their starting point, the attaining of work-related skills, promotions and impact at work. Measuring outcomes from starting points, acknowledging distance travelled as achievements, will be critical.
In a similar vein, we feel that the FES toolkit’s references to “all learners” are requiring too much from providers.
5-Point Grading System
Our member survey indicated strong overall support for a new 5-point scale on the proposed scorecard although the new scorecard approach has been greeted with some scepticism.
As indicated above, a key concern is that inspectors will be able consistently to differentiate between Secure and Strong, especially across different programmes.
FIN members are also concerned that inspectors might be inconsistent when visiting different types of providers, especially in their understanding of how employer providers operate. We hope that better training and methodology improvements for inspectors will be introduced.
Question: What do you think about our approach to ‘exemplary’ practice?
A major point of discussion in our roundtables has focused on how much the new Exemplary grade correlates with the old Outstanding one and a general lack of clarity surrounding it. FIN is not clear if the purpose of the new top grade is a case of
inspectors identifying best practice so that the government can highlight it. If so, we will be urging members in advance of an inspection to be ready to draw attention to the inspectors examples of best practice rather than just hoping the inspectors will spot them.
Question: What do you think about the other evaluation scales we have considered?
- a binary met/not met scale
- a 3-point scale
- a 4-point scale
- a 4+ scale
- a 7-point scale
We are comfortable with the 5-point scale but it is strange that it is not being applied to all areas of an inspection, e.g. safeguarding and meeting local skills needs.
Question: Do you have any other ideas we could consider?
FIN believes that Ofsted could add value to the skills eco-system by checking the impact of a provider’s apprenticeship provision has on employers, specifically the difference made to an employer’s workforce.
For example, if a provider is talking to an employer about workforce development needs, can the provider evidence that they are helping to future proof the business either locally or nationally across an industry?
There is an element here of looking at the bigger picture than just the day-to-day provision, such as providers investing in state-of-the-art academies and equipment while also helping to professionalise and promote careers in many sectors.
A further idea is that Ofsted could have more impact on quality if the inspectorate introduced a bi-annal health check which would involve two inspectors on site for two days. Previous recommendations can be checked by smaller teams in a less intensive manner but more frequently. While this raises questions about Ofsted’s own resources in an extremely tight fiscal climate, health checking providers would be cost effective and better serve providers.
Question: What do you think about including data alongside report cards, for example information about how well children and learners achieve?
As indicated above, achievement should be measured taking into account the individual learner’s starting point. Concerted efforts by the provider to widen participation should also be recognised.
Proposal 2: Education inspection toolkits
Question: What do you think about the inspection toolkits? [Option to select evaluation area to comment on]
Ideally there should be different FES toolkits for the varying types of provider within the sector. For example, an employer provider toolkit would have greater emphasis on the technical elements of the apprenticeship, the development of a skilled workforce, increase in productivity and improved staff retention.
Different skills programmes should also necessitate a varied approach. Skills bootcamps for example should not be subject to the full toolkit. The bootcamp toolkit should be appropriate to delivering a short course with a job outcome.
Curriculum
The survey results reveal two equally held concerns among members. Firstly there is a strong wish for inspectors to look at the learner’s journey between their starting point and desired destination, i.e. distance travelled.
Starting points should include those for behaviour and attitude. A commitment to work and progress, not just achievement, should be recognised.
Related to this, there is a view that the reforms are aimed too much at young people early in their careers at the expense of those already in, and staying in, work.
Members also question whether non-specialist inspectors can recognise what constitutes ‘excelling’ in a particular sector, e.g. hairdressing or achieving a distinction in the end point assessment.
While we welcome ‘where appropriate’, it can be open to interpretation and some inspectors are not sufficiently confident in their own judgment to veer from the written word.
Inspection should recognise that there is more flexibility in curriculum design for higher levels, mature adult learners and apprentices within an employer provider. The toolkit is still too focused on full-time education for younger more inexperienced learners.
Teaching
Even though Ofsted confirmed on its consultation webinar that looking at maths and English will remain a fundamental part of an inspection, it was surprising and disappointing that there was not underlined in the consultation documents.
We would expect the new operating guide to specifically refer to functional skills. Inspectors should ask how improvements in maths and English are being achieved despite the government’s recent exit requirement announcement for apprentices aged
19 and over.
There should be a better understanding of funded learning and alignment for inspectors to judge provision that is funded and counts as off-the-job hours.
Safeguarding
On safeguarding, FIN believes that an exemplary grade should be attainable. Judgements on this aspect should be evidence rather than perception based. Basing a judgment on a learner’s perception of the provider’s processes is very subjective.
The guidance on safeguarding should cover whether it is ‘age appropriate’ and stage appropriate. For more mature learners who are at a stage of life where experience is significant, the expectations for safeguarding should be lowered.
FIN is concerned with the FES toolkit reference (page 8) to learners having “little confidence” about the provider tackling safety issues. This alone should not be considered in isolation. On page 9, the toolkit wording for expectations on governors in
respect of safeguarding should be reviewed and possibly amended.
Leadership
FIN is concerned that the Leadership section of the FES toolkit might cause confusion in terms of a provider self-evaluating or the inspectors judging whether leadership is secure or strong.
There are references in this section (and elsewhere in the toolkit) to practices being established or embedded “over time”. An indication of whether this means over 12 months for example would be welcome.
Governance and oversight
The FIN survey reveals overwhelming support (92%) among members for provider governance to incorporate a proper element of external challenge.
The proposed toolkit does not require governors to be impartial or independent and FIN believes that Ofsted should stipulate an expectation that some of them should be.
Local skills needs
On the question of whether ILPs should also be graded on meeting local skills needs, the survey respondents are split.
Those providers in favour feel that this traditional ILP strength should be recognised. They queried why there are only three proposed grades when there should be opportunities to demonstrate exemplary engagement with local employers.
FIN also notes that the toolkit does not refer to LSIPs when the government has now confirmed that devolved authorities will bring forward a fresh set of plans.
Staff wellbeing and workload covered
FIN questions whether the new approach will fully recognise provider staff’s continuous improvement when strong.
Participation and Development
Ofsted should recognise that staff turnover, particularly in sectors such as health and care, is often beyond the provider’s control.
It is important to note that providers are often not funded for this activity.
Question: What do you think about the research, statutory guidance and professional standards that we have considered? Are there any others we should consider?
In FES, the operations of some employer providers are subject to other regulators as well as meeting Ofsted’s expectations. They have expressed concern to FIN that this can cause tensions and inspectors should be aware of them.
Question: What do you think about our working definition of inclusion, and how we will inspect inclusion?
We are not aware of a ‘working definition’ for the FES sector. In its webinar on 25 March 2025, Ofsted indicated that it was not minded to define by what it means by ‘inclusion’; for example, there is no reference to care leavers as learners in this category. The inspectorate would expect the provider to show how inclusive it has been in the recruitment and teaching of learners, although there is no implied call to widen learner participation and Ofsted is relying on providers to identify additional needs with no national markers available for the FES sector.
One FIN member in further education and skills understandably questioned the need for inclusion to be specifically part of the new approach, remarking “Isn’t this what we do every day?”. But the great majority of our survey respondents were content with it, providing Ofsted offered a definition of inclusion and provided clear guidelines to ensure fair assessments across all providers. Again, this should probably involve a reference to the learner’s starting point.
There are concerns about the toolkit’s references to “barriers to learning” given that “barriers” may be open to interpretation and providers may not be in a position to remove them all. If Ofsted intend to use the term ‘barriers’, it will be critical for providers to be able to access a specific list of the barriers which Ofsted recognise as barriers to learning that performance will be judged on.
Members would also welcome clarification on how the new expectation would impact on the evaluation of achievement. They believe that this might require better data collection.
Question: Do you think the toolkit will be suitable for different types of providers?
Some FIN members feel that the reforms are just a rehash of what we have currently and that they have been barely tweaked for independent learning providers. They believe that the new approach is rather schools orientated. FE and skills seem like an
afterthought and the changes do not sufficiently address the needs of all levels of learners including community learners. A significant part of FE and skills is the significant and phenomenal impact that work based learning, especially apprenticeships, has on the labour workforce nationally. The proposed toolkit does not sufficiently test the industrial impact of this. Nor is there sufficient focus on higher level learners or older learners. FIN believes that there should be different versions of the toolkit for each type of FES provider.
Proposal 3: Inspection methodology
Question: What do you think about our proposed changes to how we carry out an inspection?
Key Points on Inspection Practice
FIN supports Ofsted’s “done with” as opposed to “done to” approach.
FIN and UVAC are strong advocates for inspectors with specific experience in a sector/industry, higher education and/or apprenticeships. In our view, variance and inconsistency at inspection often come from inspectors who do not understand
employers, providers, HE or apprenticeships in comparison to full-time study programmes. A lack of recognition for technical expertise and knowledge comes from a lack of detailed understanding of the industry.
The reforms should include a better understanding of older learners (aged 18 to 40 and over), professional environments and diverse needs. Greater respect for the adult learner context would be particularly welcome.
FIN looks forward to Ofsted confirming that a 5-day notice period for inspections will apply to all providers.
We would welcome more focused initial meetings during inspections.
Additional questions
Question: What do you consider are the likely workload and well-being implications of these proposals?
Repeating the answer above, Ofsted should recognise that staff turnover, particularly in sectors such as health and care, is often beyond the provider’s control and can have an impact on the quality of programme delivery. However, the introduction of shadow nominees across all education providers and 5/6 day notice periods for visits will be a very positive step.
Question: What could we do to help reduce or manage any unintended consequences?
FIN members feel that under the current framework, some inspectors have been inconsistent in requiring ‘independent and impartial’ careers guidance. In judging the careers guidance being offered to a successful apprentice or learner, instigating an
internal promotion should be acceptable for an employer provider, while an external provider should not be expected to recommend to the learner that they could or should immediately switch employers after the investment made in the training. Greater consistency in this area is requested.
Furthermore older apprentices may not need ‘next steps’ advice. Sustainable employment is valued by both the learner and the employer.
Satisfying the eight Gatsby Benchmarks is a big ask for a small provider.
Question: Is there anything else about the changes to inspection that you would
like to tell us?
FIN members do value and respect Ofsted. FIN leadership and its members can see definite improvements and greater transparency in all of the inspectorate’s activities. The new toolkit is an opportunity to put as much emphasis on recognising the contribution learning and skills bring to society. It is therefore imperative that the exemplary grade is achievable. Both providers and inspectors need to fully understand the requirements of exemplary to ensure that this is a judgment that is aimed for in the pursuit of excellence.
Question: Please tell us how you think our proposals may or may not impact
equality.
We have referred above to the need for inspectors to be consistent in their judgement of FES providers who have learners with diverse needs.