22 September 2026 — Parents need trustworthy information about schools. Children need teachers and leaders able to act on it. A renewed dispute over inspection in England asks whether the way schools are judged helps those two needs come together.
The new development
On 21 September, the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) launched a campaign seeking a halt to graded inspections and a fundamental review. It favours short narrative reports describing strengths and areas for development. Schools Week’s report of the campaign and Ofsted’s response also describes a June survey of more than 5,000 members: 72 per cent thought the direction of inspection had worsened over the previous year.
That survey is older evidence newly brought into the debate, not a September measurement. The reporting reviewed here does not supply the complete questionnaire, response rate or respondent-level data. It therefore cannot establish how representative the answers are, or isolate inspection as the cause of distress.
Ofsted, England’s education inspectorate, says inspections and grading will continue. It argues that reforms have reduced unnecessary pressure and that parents need clear evaluations. This is an active disagreement about accountability, not an announced suspension of inspections.
What inspectors say has changed
For background, Ofsted’s June explanation of its September 2026 updates says context should help inspectors interpret evidence fairly. It describes a new statistical model for comparing achievement at schools in similar circumstances. It also says schools will not be expected to implement newly changed guidance perfectly straight away.
Those are statements about the intended approach. They are not independent evidence that leaders experience inspections in that way. Conversely, a union’s reports of distress do not establish that every inspection fails. The useful question is where the intended approach and the experience of being inspected diverge, and why.
AE reading: start with the next school day
Consider an explicitly hypothetical example. An inspector identifies weak support for pupils who struggle with reading. The headteacher agrees. In one version, staff receive time to examine pupils’ work together, specialist advice and a realistic plan. The finding becomes a starting point for better teaching.
In another version, the same finding produces extra reporting deadlines but no cover for staff training. Teachers prepare evidence late at night. The file improves while the time available for discussing pupils’ difficulties shrinks. Both schools can record that they responded. Only the first has clearly gained the means to do something different.
This is where autopoietic ecology, or AE, offers a useful line of inquiry. Developed by Steven Watson and Erik Brezovec, it asks how the ability to act is formed through relationships and activities. Here, improvement depends on the arrangement of people, time, knowledge and authority—not simply a leader’s willingness to comply.
The AE Concept Guide distinguishes being able to carry out an activity now from renewing that ability over time. A school might complete an inspection response through exceptional unpaid effort. That does not show that it can sustain the same effort, or that the process has strengthened teaching.
Applied to this dispute, the distinction changes what we would measure. Alongside the judgement, ask what happens to planning time, staff retention and access to specialist help afterwards. Ask whether teachers can raise problems earlier, without spending disproportionate effort protecting themselves from the consequences of acknowledging them.
Whose account changes the judgement?
Context must do more than appear in a conversation. A teacher might explain that a pupil’s attendance reflects inaccessible transport or a care commitment. Parents might describe a support arrangement that looks available on paper but cannot be used. The analytical question is whether such knowledge changes the evaluation and the practical response.
EdgeLab’s Research Programme treats this movement from recognising a problem to changing what happens next as something to investigate. For inspection, a useful study would follow particular concerns from the initial conversation through the report, the school’s response and subsequent classroom practice. It would not assume that mentioning context means that context influenced a decision.
This is an AE interpretation, not evidence that the theory has been proved by the dispute. It also does not mean difficult judgements should disappear. Children can be harmed when serious weaknesses are left unnamed. Sustaining a school’s existing routines is not automatically the right outcome.
The strongest alternative—and the test ahead
A plausible alternative is that clearer grades identify weaknesses more reliably and make improvement harder to postpone. Some distress could arise from wider workload and funding pressures, or from the difficulty of changing established practice. Removing grades would not necessarily remove those pressures.
That argument deserves a fair comparison. But it should be tested against outcomes, not accepted because grades appear decisive. Compare approaches on the accuracy of findings, parents’ understanding, pupils’ experience and whether schools can implement useful changes. Include time spent producing evidence, and examine different school contexts rather than relying on one average.
The immediate development to watch is whether the response to this campaign produces an independently examinable account of both benefits and burdens. The practical takeaway is simple: an inspection should leave more than a verdict. What, specifically, enables the school to teach better the following term?
Explore all sections and search by topic in the EdgeLab post directory. Receive published posts by email through our free, optional subscription service.
Leave a Reply