More than a single-word judgement: How research led to change at Ofsted
Last year, an inquest into the death of head teacher Ruth Perry determined that an Ofsted inspection in late 2022 had contributed to Perry’s decision to take her own life in January 2023. The case launched a reform programme at Ofsted with an independent research project led by IFF Research feeding into the changes at the regulator, leading to the Big Listen report.
The project and the research findings culminated in the government’s decision to remove single-word judgements – which boiled down inspections of schools and other education providers into headline scores – with ‘report cards’ to be used instead.
John Higton, research director at IFF Research, discusses the independent research project to understand perceptions of Ofsted and the changes that followed.
What was the intention behind the research?
We took the cue from what Ofsted were asking. Ofsted’s remits and the sectors in which it operates are quite numerous, and are not just education – it’s early years provision, children’s social care. There’s a wide range of audiences it wanted to consult.
For example, for the sampling approach we had, there wasn’t one specific sample source – we had to go to various ones to reach different people. We wanted [the research] to be consultative, we wanted it to be broad. When we wrote the proposal for the bid, we took a deliberative approach to some of the focus groups we did. The purpose of that was to come to some form of consensus about a specific issue that we wanted to cover, within those groups – that could have been about single-word judgements, inspection methods or reporting.
It was a lot to do in a short space of time. The calling of the election didn’t particularly help us – we were right in the middle of fieldwork when Rishi Sunak decided they were going to go [for a vote] in July. That was a little bit of a struggle, but any research agency you’d speak to at the time would say exactly the same.
Did the change in government add any issues to the research?
Very little [impact], to be frank. We’d completed all the survey work. We started in April, and by the time the election was called, we’d already been out and done the survey. It was a pretty quick turnaround, and we went to just over 7,000 people, so it was a good old chunk of people we went to very quickly. We were about two-thirds of the way through the qualitative programme as well. In terms of the data collection and therefore the evidence we collected, the electoral change didn’t mean that much to us.
How was it working with Ofsted?
It was great. The [Ofsted] research team we worked with were really clear from the outset that they wanted this [project] to be independent and reiterated it all the way through in what the team said and with their actions. I think it helped Ofsted, as it was doing its own consultation exercises alongside this.
Ofsted’s research team was pretty clued up, and they also had a direct ear to the senior management at Ofsted. The team took all of our objections seriously, and they were very collaborative in a methodological sense. As people, as well, they were friendly and engaging, really encouraging and committed to using evidence to support the changes they wanted to see in the organisation.
How did Ofsted respond to the findings?
Brilliantly. It clearly wanted to listen to what providers and professionals had to say. It was very receptive to criticism. From the off, when [HM chief inspector] Sir Martyn Oliver joined, he was very open straight away about everything Ofsted wanted to do and wanted to make a change of focus in how it operated as an organisation.
We presented the results to Ofsted on three separate occasions and it was really receptive to what we found. It helped [the organisation] to think about the consistency it was getting in the messages from its own internal work and the independent work, and that meant it was able to act pretty quickly on the findings.
Was it a surprise in how quickly the government responded?
It didn’t come as a surprise to us. The dreadful circumstances around Ruth Perry’s death were always going to put single-word judgements at the forefront of the media narrative. Ofsted had said that Ruth’s death was a catalyst for change, and it publicly acknowledged it felt it needed to change its approach.
On single-word judgements, from the evidence we collected from most organisations and professionals we spoke to, one in 10 thought single-word judgements for professionals were a good idea. The commentary we got back was that it is you can’t reduce complex settings down into a single word. There are many things that operate in the background [at a school], and giving a mark like that was, for many of them, counterproductive. The fact that happened to Ruth Perry as well meant it was always going to be part of the narrative.
What challenges did the Ruth Perry case bring?
We were cognisant that it was there and we were open with it with individuals that we spoke to, certainly in the qualitative groups. We put safeguarding in place both for our researchers and also the people who were taking part in the focus groups.
Conversations could get emotive. As a team, we would sit around and talk about it and think about what the wellbeing aspects were. The safeguarding of our own staff was, for us, as important as for the people taking part in the groups. But, as I am sure will be common to any researcher, when you do interviews and focus groups on topics like this, it can be cathartic for the people taking part. At the end of several groups, people were thanking us for giving them the space to talk about Ofsted in general – the issues and challenges they faced with the inspection process, but also to express the good things that Ofsted inspectors do.
From a methodological point of view, it was less about single-word judgements and it was more about aspects of Ofsted’s culture. Those judgements were more symptomatic of [education providers’] deeper feelings about [Ofsted’s] historical culture.
What were the most important findings from the research, in your view?
The evidence is quite clear that the historical culture of inspection and the reporting itself is central. A lot of people talked about positive experiences that they had with inspectors. The inspectors act professionally, most of them act with courtesy and they have really good conversations on the day about the sorts of things they could do. The actual process itself wasn’t always as fearsome as the anticipation of the inspection. A lot of the discussions they [education providers] had with the inspectors were really helpful.
The feelings of anxiety [people have about inspections] tend to be more driven by things like perceptions of Ofsted as a body. [There was a] reported disconnect between what was said in an inspection and what ended up in the final report. Then there’s also the fear of the consequences of a negative inspection report, in terms of the perception of the people who use the services.
What does the research show about the relationship between Ofsted and education providers?
Generally, social care providers, arguably early years, were more positive. But they didn’t have the same challenges with Ofsted as schools did. And so, from that perspective, there’s quite a variance. I think the feelings of anxiety were lesser – not to say they weren’t present, but they seemed less acute.
The tensions with education and professional staff were greater, but there is some quite early evidence they are improving. Things Ofsted put in place before we did the research were things like mental wellbeing training for inspectors – the idea was for them to be more aware of how the people they were inspecting were feeling during the inspection process. We did a cross break on some of the data for those who had been inspected more recently, and they were beginning to show improvement in how they felt about Ofsted – things like the measurement on whether or not they were trusted, and whether or not they felt inspections were empathetic. But I think the problem with the culture is it is so deeply embedded because of the prior years. That cultural view is going to take a long time to change.
What do you hope the longer-term impact of the research will be?
Ofsted have acted really quickly on the evidence. Publicly, they have said they want to work more with those they are inspecting regularly, and that’s really positive. We spoke to a lot of people who want help – they don’t want to have an ‘inspection’, they want to be guided on the sorts of things they need to do to make improvements. Working in partnership and collaborative are the sorts of things people are interested in and would like Ofsted to do [with them].
In the longer term, the changes in culture need to be visible, I think. When the feelings are as deep as they are, it is not a surprise that it would take some time for that to happen. Ofsted wants to consult on a new inspection framework. One of the findings from this study was that the existing inspection framework was a bit too generic, especially in the education space. Ofsted has said it wants to keep the conversation going and it wants to keep consulting.
The fieldwork for the research was carried out between April and July 2024, with IFF Research surveying 3,496 provider representatives and 3,831 professional staff, while also running 49 focus groups and three in-depth interviews.
- Providers mostly thought inspectors act professionally ( 79%) and Ofsted reports are clear and easy to read ( 76%), although lacking some detail.
- A third ( 33%) of professionals said Ofsted’s inspectors acted empathetically. The evidence suggests the approach of inspectors influenced perceptions of Ofsted.
- Only a quarter of providers ( 28%) and professionals individuals ( 26%) were in favour of single-word judgements, with schools and their staff least supportive of all (only 10% of schools and 15% of school staff were in favour).
You can call Samaritans for free on 116 123 or visit www.samaritans.org to find your nearest branch.

We hope you enjoyed this article.
Research Live is published by MRS.
The Market Research Society (MRS) exists to promote and protect the research sector, showcasing how research delivers impact for businesses and government.
Members of MRS enjoy many benefits including tailoured policy guidance, discounts on training and conferences, and access to member-only content.
For example, there's an archive of winning case studies from over a decade of MRS Awards.
Find out more about the benefits of joining MRS here.
0 Comments