Ready for Ofsted’s Autumn Changes?

Kerry Boffey of FIN identifies changes in the Ofsted operating guide and toolkit which require provider attention before September.

Providers preparing for inspection should pay as much attention to Ofsted’s ‘Further education and skills operating guide for inspectors: for use from September 2026’ as the changes to the inspection toolkit.

Good preparation saves time and generates confidence that the visit will go well. At the Fellowship of Inspection Nominees (FIN), we have reviewed the latest editions of the operating guide and the toolkit. While some of changes for September appear subtle, FIN will be tracking the impact of changes and sharing our findings.

Case sampling of learners or apprentices is an example of where potential worry can be avoided. Currently the lead inspector and the provider will agree on the samples on day 1 of the visit, but from the autumn agreement will be reached beforehand in the planning call and then confirmed on the first day. This is a welcome change for both parties: longer notice will increase the chances of the inspector getting exactly what they want, while for the provider it takes away some of the last-minute rush to make arrangements.

There is another new obligation on the inspector in relation to the single central record (SCR). Previously, the inspector should plan to check the SCR after the orientation meeting and as soon as possible at the start of the inspection. In future the record must be checked after the meeting. It’s a subtle change from should to must. Focusing the priority avoids issues being discovered later in the inspection. Again, this clarity is beneficial for both parties.

From September, the provider may be given an indicative grade for one valuation area by the end of day 1 although it may not be as quick during a longer visit. This will be accompanied by a statement that no further evidence will be gathered in that area. This occurs after the inspection team has identified reliable evidence indicating a ‘secure fit’ around an evaluation area, and the nominee agrees with the judgement. Inspectors have always used the triangulation of evidence as a robust methodology. Providers sometimes experienced inspectors cancelling meetings or interviews during inspection and as a result would be fearful of the reason. In reality it was as a result of the inspector reaching a firm judgment. This process formalises this procedure and, with the secure fit model, is a welcome confirmation.

The importance of the nominee’s role is underlined by a change in the conducting of dialogue between the inspection team and the provider. End-of-day reflection meetings will in future only take place with the nominee as opposed to the provider’s leaders. The role of the nominee and shadow nominee is an evolving role. While this change to the daily structure appears small, the significance is not. Experienced nominees are equally at risk, assuming their experience will guide them through because of success previously. Keeping sharp and up to date with changes and expectations is critical. The FIN residential inspection bootcamps are often an eye-opener for the most experienced nominees who need to be shown new techniques that minimise risk and increase chances of success.

Changes to the toolkit

The latest version of the toolkit contains a significant addition to safeguarding. Appropriate safeguarding and child protection arrangements should ensure that leaders and staff identify learners with “mental health issues that may develop into safeguarding risks, such as eating disorders, self-harm or suicide ideation”. Furthermore, while most providers will be on top of the matter, staff should be “aware of and respond to some learners’ and apprentices’ increased risk of needing help and protection, including those with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND) and those who do not communicate verbally”. This is an area a provider could sleepwalk into. Senior leaders often assume someone is on top of all updates and changes without recognising they themselves need to be involved. Be aware that some of the freely available standardised training that many providers default to does not fully explore the implications of these raised expectations.

Ofsted now makes it clear that the safeguarding standard is likely to be ‘not met’ if learners and apprentices do not know how to report issues and/or do not trust that their safeguarding concerns will be acted on. The FIN safeguarding working groups who meet on a regular basis often expose the vulnerabilities that lack of awareness can lead to. For 16 to18 year-old learners, these tightened requirements become even more paramount.

Also new is the requirement that “where providers receive the inclusive mainstream fund for learners aged 16 to 19, leaders and governors have developed (and published, where necessary) plans and taken steps to strengthen inclusive practice to improve access, participation and outcomes across their provision”. From our own experience with new members, it is surprising how many inclusive practices are organic and developed informally over time. These practices, while previously proven effective, no longer withstand external scrutiny or are sufficiently robust to meet the requirements of the secure fit model. This is where strong governance is critical and often challenging the status quo of previous practices that were sufficient under old frameworks.

Inclusion

The expected standard for inclusion now states: “Leaders mostly take the right actions to support learners or apprentices, but weaknesses or inconsistencies in providing support”. FIN will be probing on how Ofsted will define ‘mostly’. Challenges behind the scenes are an important part of our work. The secure fit model is designed to address inconsistencies in judgements but use of words like ‘mostly’ adds ambiguity.

Providers should in addition “consistently identify when additional learning support is no longer required or can be reduced”. When analysing reports, trends and patterns, we are fully aware of the significance Ofsted places on consistency. The more complex the provision, or the changing needs of learners become, the more challenging consistency proves.

Grading curriculum, teaching and training

This section of the revised toolkit contains a few changes and deletions. For example, a provider’s delivery may need attention if leaders do not routinely make sure that the curriculum is accessible and appropriately adapted for learners and apprentices, such as those who are disadvantaged. FIN will be listing these changes for members and recommending how best to respond to them. Many of these changes are subtle nuances. Our analysis also includes the HMIs because we can track patterns demonstrated by individuals who lead on the ground and their interpretations from previously published reports.

With these changes and as we move towards 12 months of operations under the new regime, inspectors and providers are still finding their feet. In the autumn, FIN will publish a research report and guidance that incorporates Ofsted’s official changes supported by our own analysis from our extensive work behind the scenes.

By Kerry Boffey, CEO at Fellowship of Inspection Nominees