From self-disclosure to systematic insight: what ‘early and accurate assessment’ now means under Ofsted’s Inclusion judgement

Part 1 of a 4-part series reviewing Ofsted’s Inclusion Toolkit via the graduated approach: Assess, Plan, Do, Review. Chris Quickfall and Cognassist have been championing learner inclusion through robust cognitive assessment since 2017.

Providers can no longer rely on learners telling them what they need. Under the new Inclusion toolkit, Ofsted has placed a firm spotlight on the ‘graduated approach’ – “a continuous cycle of ‘assess, plan, do and review” – that providers need to be undertaking to address Inclusion.

The very first step “Assess” is particularly essential. The message is clear: inclusion begins, succeeds, or fails at the point of identification.

Identification practices across the FE and skills sectors have varied widely. Some inaccurately rely heavily on self-declaration, some on legacy information, some on English and maths diagnostics, and others on good intentions delivered inconsistently. But Ofsted’s new framework closes the door on inconsistency and inaccuracy. It demands a systematic, whole-provider approach to early and accurate assessment for every learner, not just those with formal diagnoses, EHCPs or confident self-advocacy.

In the first article of this series, I’ll unpack why “Assess” is a decisive factor in securing a Strong or Exceptional Inclusion grade, where providers face the greatest risks, and what needs to change.

What Ofsted says about Assessment

The expectations for assessment are unambiguous and tightly linked to inspection outcomes.

• Ofsted expects leaders to “establish a culture in which early and accurate assessment of learners’ and apprentices’ needs is prioritised.”^[1]

Early and accurate assessment is a leadership responsibility. This is not framed as good practice. It is a requirement. And critically, it applies to all learners, not just those who arrive with pre-existing evidence of need. Providers must be able to show that everyone is assessed, early, reliably, and in a way that meaningfully informs provision.

• “Leaders and staff quickly and accurately identify learners’ and apprentices’ learning and support needs. When these emerge or change, staff adapt programmes and provide suitable support”^[2]

This criterion is taken from the ‘Expected Standard’ grade and clearly forces providers to consider the speed and timing as well as accuracy of initial assessments. It is no longer acceptable to have a process that exists in name only, nor one that is slow, inconsistent, or reliant on learners knowing what to disclose.

Ofsted expects a system that identifies needs early, at scale, and with a degree of precision that allows providers to make confident, evidence-based decisions.

• “Leaders take an appropriate ‘graduated’ approach (a continuous cycle of ‘assess, plan, do and review’ that helps learners and apprentices to receive an appropriate level of support)”^[3]

This means assessment should not exist in isolation. It must form a coherent and repeatable workflow that informs planning, shapes support and directly feeds into review.

• “Leaders have only recently started to take appropriate action to identify and assess learners’ and apprentices’ needs”^[4]

Within the “Needs Attention” grade, Ofsted highlights a trap providers may not spot until too late. Even adequate processes only just implemented will not meet the expected standard. Providers who implement new processes shortly before risk being downgraded because sustained impact cannot yet be evidenced.

What This Really Means for Providers

The rationale behind this sharpened focus is simple:

• Almost all learners with barriers to their learning do not have EHCPs.
• Many do not self-disclose or do so only after struggling.
• Many barriers (cognitive, emotional, executive function-related) are invisible in traditional diagnostics.
• Inconsistent identification leads to inconsistent support, which drives inequality in outcomes.

Ofsted is responding to these realities. Early and accurate identification is now viewed as the foundation of inclusion and the operational gateway to meaningful support, retention, progress and achievement.

For providers, this means the “Assess” stage cannot be a token process, a legacy questionnaire, or a functional skills screen supplemented by professional judgement. It must be a robust, whole-cohort, whole-journey system.

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

1. Over-reliance on self-disclosure

Self-declaration is valuable but deeply incomplete. A process based primarily on disclosure cannot be considered “early” or “accurate”.

Avoid it by: Ensuring every learner undergoes a robust assessment process that uncovers needs whether or not the learner is aware of them.

2. Single-point assessment at enrolment

An assessment at induction only does not meet Ofsted’s expectation that needs that “emerge or change” are identified and acted upon. Therefore successful assessment is conditional upon review processes being in place.

Avoid it by: Building structured review touchpoints into the learner journey.

3. Assessing only some cohorts

Different processes for apprentices, adults, 16–19 or subcontracted provision led to inconsistencies that Ofsted views as inequitable.

Avoid it by: Implementing one unified assessment model across all programmes, with appropriate adjustments for delivery context.

4. Assessments that do not translate into actionable insight

If tutors cannot use assessment outputs, Ofsted will judge them as not having “meaningful impact on the provision”.

Avoid it by: Providing clear, practical recommendations that inform day-to-day teaching and support for that learner.

5. Recent adoption of new processes

Late implementation, however well-intentioned, risks a Needs Attention grade.

Avoid it by: Embedding assessment processes early, evidencing improvement over time, and ensuring impact can be shown.

Solutions: What Good Looks Like

For leadership (strategic):

• Establish a single, organisation-wide definition and workflow for assessment.
• Set expectations that every learner is assessed meaningfully, not administratively.
• Ensure assessment data informs planning, staffing, ALS deployment and curriculum sequencing.
• Build governance structures that review identification data and address gaps.
• Provide staff with training that enables accurate interpretation of assessment outputs.

For tutors and support staff (operational):

• Use assessment insights to tailor teaching and support from day one.
• Revisit learner profiles regularly, noting any emerging or changing needs.
• Share information consistently across delivery teams and subcontractors.
• Recognise that reasonable adjustments often begin with understanding learning barriers, not with diagnosis.

Together these form a coherent, APDR-aligned (Assess, Plan, Do and Review) approach that demonstrates both intent and impact.

Inspection Lens: Self-Audit Questions

Leaders and teams can test their readiness with five sharp, inspection-aligned questions:

1. Can we demonstrate that every learner undergoes early and accurate assessment, not just those who self-declare or arrive with documentation?
2. Do we have evidence that our assessment processes lead to meaningful changes in provision and support?
3. How do we identify needs that “emerge or change” mid-programme, and can we show that staff adapt accordingly?
4. Is our assessment model consistent across all provision types, including apprenticeships and subcontracted delivery?
5. If asked tomorrow, could tutors clearly explain how assessment informs their everyday practice?

If the answer to any of these is “not yet”, inspection risk remains high.

The “Assess” stage is the fulcrum of Ofsted’s Inclusion judgement. Providers who build systematic, evidence-informed, whole-cohort assessment models will not only reduce barriers more effectively but will also be able to demonstrate the sustained impact Ofsted now expects.

Join us next time as we dig in to the ‘Plan’ component of the graduated approach for Ofsted Inclusion.

By Chris Quickfall, CEO of Cognassist

References

1. Further education and skills inspection toolkit, page 10
2. Further education and skills inspection toolkit, page 14
3. Further education and skills inspection toolkit, page 14
4. Further education and skills inspection toolkit, page 14