Ofsted inspection framework - report analysis

The new Ofsted framework assesses six areas using a five-point grading scale from 'Urgent improvement' up to 'Exceptional'.

1. New Ofsted areas:
30% of schools have at least one 'Needs attention' or 'Urgent improvement' grade.
15% of schools achieved 'Strong standard' or 'Exceptional' grades in all 6 areas.

2. Inspection timing:
Schools previously graded 'Good' or 'Outstanding' were typically reinspected after just over 4 years.
Schools previously graded 'Requires Improvement' were revisited much sooner.

3. Early warning signs:
In our sample, the average gap between a detected Ofsted website visit and inspection was 47 days.

Key findings from 250 recently published reports

School leaders increasingly want two things from Ofsted analysis: a realistic sense of when they may next be inspected, and a clearer picture of what schools are actually securing under the new framework.

To explore that, we analysed 250 state-funded school reports published by Ofsted between 1 December 2025 and 26 February 2026. Those reports relate to inspections carried out between 21 October 2025 and 15 January 2026, including inspections from the trial period before inspections fully resumed on 11 November 2025.

This sample is dominated by primary schools and Section 5 inspections, making it a useful early snapshot of how the new framework is landing in mainstream practice.

Top grades remain relatively uncommon. Only 15% of rated schools in this sample achieved Strong standard or Exceptional in all six areas.

Mixed scorecards are more typical than perfect ones. 30% of rated schools had at least one area graded Needs attention or Urgent improvement.

Schools previously judged as 'Good' typically achieve 2 of the 6 areas at Strong standard or Exceptional grade.

Inspection timing still appears linked to previous grade. In this sample, previously Good schools had a median inspection gap of 4.16 years. Previously Requires improvement schools were revisited after a median of 2.55 years.

Website visits can provide meaningful early warning. In our separate early-warning sample, the average gap between first detected Ofsted website activity and inspection was 47 days.

What types of schools are included?

The 250 published reports in this sample are mostly mainstream school inspections - 4 schools were not graded. Primary schools make up the large majority, with secondary schools forming the next biggest group. There is also a smaller number of special schools and alternative provision settings.

Most of the reports are Section 5 inspections, with a smaller number of reinspections, academy first inspections and monitoring visits. That means the dataset is broad enough to be useful, but still weighted towards the kinds of inspections that most headteachers and school leaders will recognise as the main reference point.

In other words, this is not a niche or unusual subset of Ofsted activity. It is a substantial early cross-section of state-funded school inspections under the new regime.

One of the most important questions for headteachers is not simply which area is hardest, but what a typical scorecard looks like overall.

The table below shows how the 246 graded schools in this sample (4 schools were not graded) performed across each of the six Ofsted report-card areas. Reading across each row gives a clearer sense of which areas are proving hardest to secure at the stronger end of the scale, and which are more often emerging as relative strengths.

Fewer schools are achieving top grades in Achievement and Curriculum and teaching.

The broad pattern is clear. Achievement and Curriculum and teaching look the toughest areas overall, with the highest numbers in Urgent improvement and Needs attention. By contrast, Inclusion and Personal development and wellbeing appear strongest, with the largest numbers of schools achieving Strong standard and relatively few falling into the bottom two categories.

Area	Urgent improvement	Needs attention	Expected standard	Strong standard	Exceptional	Schools
Achievement	5	53	133	52	3	246
Curriculum and teaching	3	37	156	46	4	246
Attendance and behaviour	2	28	125	86	5	246
Leadership and governance	2	20	143	75	6	246
Inclusion	2	16	117	103	8	246
Personal development and wellbeing	1	7	115	116	7	246

In simple terms, this suggests that many schools are achieving a solid middle-ground profile, but fewer are consistently reaching the strongest ratings in Achievement and Curriculum and teaching. If school leaders are trying to judge where the new framework is biting hardest, those appear to be the most demanding areas.

Of the 246 graded schools (4 schools were not graded), only 36 (15%) achieved Strong standard or Exceptional across all six areas; no school scored Exceptional across all 6 areas.

Only 15% of schools achieved Strong standard or Exceptional across all 6 Ofsted areas.

73 (30%) were graded Needs attention or Urgent improvementin at least one area.

The implication is clear: under the new framework, the typical school is much more likely to receive a mixed profile than a clean sweep of top grades.

Headline measure	Schools	Percentage
Strong standard or Exceptional in all 6 areas	36 of 246	14.63%
At least one Needs attention or Urgent improvement area	73 of 246	29.67%

That is useful context for school leaders. It suggests the benchmark for what is "normal" under the new framework may be more demanding, and more uneven, than many schools would hope.

Which areas are proving hardest to secure?

Looking across all six rated areas, Achievement is currently the area most likely to fall into the bottom two categories, followed by Curriculum and teaching. Personal development and wellbeing appears strongest overall.

Area	Rated schools	Needs attention or Urgent improvement	Percentage in bottom two categories
Achievement	246	58	23.58%
Curriculum and teaching	246	40	16.26%
Attendance and behaviour	246	30	12.20%
Leadership and governance	246	22	8.94%
Inclusion	246	18	7.32%
Personal development and wellbeing	246	8	3.25%

This is where the early patterns become especially interesting for school leaders and sector observers. The framework does not appear to be distributing challenge evenly. Schools look more likely to face pressure on achievement and curriculum than on personal development and wellbeing.

How do old Ofsted grades compare with the new framework?

One of the biggest questions for school leaders is how the old overall grades seem to translate into the new report-card framework.

In this sample, no school achieved Exceptional across all 6 areas. Even among the strongest schools, a full set of Exceptional grades was not the norm.

The clearest pattern is that schools previously judged Outstanding tended to secure report cards dominated by Strong standard or Exceptional grades. On average, previously Outstanding schools achieved 5.67 top grades out of 6.

Previously Good schools looked much more mixed. On average, they achieved 2.07 grades at Strong standard or Exceptional, with most of their remaining grades at Expected standard.

Previously Requires improvement schools averaged just 0.94 grades at Strong standard or Exceptional, making top-end profiles much less common in that group.

Previous grade	Schools	Schools with Strong or Exceptional in all 6 areas	Average Strong or Exceptional grades	Average Exceptional grades
Outstanding	3	2	5.67	1.67
Good	72	10	2.07	0.18
Requires improvement	35	0	0.94	0.00
Inadequate	11	0	1.09	0.00

This should be treated as an early directional picture rather than a direct conversion formula. But it does suggest that under the new framework, a school previously judged Good should not assume that it will receive a report card full of top grades. A more realistic expectation is a broadly positive but mixed profile, often with around 2 of the 6 areas at Strong standard or Exceptional.

What does this mean for a typical school?

If the question is what a fairly typical school report-card profile looks like in this sample, the answer is: not weak overall, but rarely flawless.

Mixed report cards are now the norm, not the exception.

Very few schools are securing top grades across all six areas. At the same time, nearly a third have at least one area in the bottom two categories. That suggests many schools are likely to sit somewhere in the middle: a broadly positive profile, but with at least one area preventing an across-the-board strong outcome.

This helps move the conversation away from whether schools are simply "doing well" or "doing badly", and towards a more realistic picture of uneven strengths and weaknesses under the new framework.

When are schools likely to be inspected again?

Schools are especially interested in timing. In practice, many leaders estimate their risk window by looking at the time since their previous inspection and then judging that in light of their previous grade.

That pattern does show up in this sample. Previously Good and Outstanding schools cluster at just over four years since their previous inspection, while previously Requires improvement schools are being revisited sooner.

Inspection timing still appears closely linked to previous grade.

Previous grade	Schools in sample	Average gap	Median gap	Shortest gap	Longest gap
Outstanding	3	4.36 years	4.39 years	4.20 years	4.50 years
Good	72	4.09 years	4.16 years	3.04 years	4.64 years
Requires improvement	35	2.44 years	2.55 years	1.61 years	3.60 years

This should not be read as a prediction model. Inspection timing is never perfectly regular. But it is a helpful benchmark: in this cohort, previous grade still appears to be closely linked to the likely gap between inspections.

Why this matters

For headteachers, this analysis offers two practical takeaways. First, previous grade still seems to matter when estimating when inspection may come back into view. Second, the most difficult part of the new framework may not be achieving a generally positive profile, but avoiding one weaker area that changes the overall picture.

For education leaders, trusts and sector commentators, the bigger point is that these early reports already show a recognisable pattern. Top-grade scorecards are relatively rare. Mixed profiles are common. Achievement and curriculum are proving harder to secure than personal development and wellbeing. And schools are still highly focused on how long it has been since their last inspection.

How much early warning can website activity provide?

Since November, 51 schools with a Greenhouse website have confirmed that they have benefited from our Ofsted Early Warning System. For each of those schools, we have analysed the first recorded Ofsted website activity, and compared it with the eventual inspection date.

Across those 51 confirmed cases, the average gap between first detected website visit and inspection was 47 days. The median was 40 days, with the shortest gap at 7 days and the longest at 110 days.

Measure	Value
Confirmed inspections	51
Average warning	46.6 days
Median warning	40 days
Shortest warning	7 days
Longest warning	110 days

That does not make website activity a precise countdown. Longer gaps may reflect postponements, rescheduling, inspector illness or other operational changes. But it does suggest that website visits can often provide schools with meaningful additional preparation time.

Why traffic spikes are a false flag

A spike in ordinary traffic does not indicate an Ofsted inspector is looking at the site. They will look at a handful of pages, and typically around 30 documents. In contrast, search bots and AI bots will hit every page of your website and all documents they can find.

Why you cannot rely on Analytics

Google Analytics and other traffic packages can be bypassed by switching off cookies. Analytics cannot track downloads.

Why our algorithm is so accurate

By analysing the raw logs for over 3,000 school websites, we know how to avoid the typical pitfalls. We believe that our algorithm is bulletproof, and we have the feedback to back it up. Ask us why...