How an Interim Leader Answers the Ofsted Self-Grading Question

A practical guide for interim headteachers and the boards that appoint them

The planning call under the renewed framework asks something that feels almost impossible if you started six weeks ago. The lead inspector asks you to evaluate the school’s strengths and priorities for improvement, including where you believe the school currently sits on the five point scale for each evaluation area.

Many interim leaders tell us this is the moment they dread. You don’t have a year of knowing the school. You may have inherited a self-evaluation you disagree with. And whatever you say will be tested over the next two days.

The good news is that being new is not the disadvantage it feels like, provided you handle it honestly.

What is actually being asked?

Not for a prediction, and not for a negotiation. The question is about the quality of your self-evaluation.

Inspectors are testing whether leaders know their own school. Under the renewed framework they start from the expected standard and gather evidence against the toolkit criteria, so what they’re really assessing on the call is whether your account of the school will match what they find.

A leader who says “strong standard” everywhere and is found to be at needs attention in two areas has told inspectors something about leadership as well as about those areas. A leader who names a weakness accurately and shows what’s being done about it has demonstrated exactly the self-awareness the framework is looking for.

The grade you offer matters far less than whether your reasoning holds up.

Say you are the interim, and say when you started

Do this in the first minute. Don’t let it emerge later.

“I’m the interim headteacher, I started on the fourth of September, and the substantive head left in July.” That’s a factual statement that sets the context for everything else you say, and inspectors will factor it in.

What it does is separate two things that would otherwise be tangled: what you’re personally accountable for, and what you inherited. Inspectors are used to leadership changes and they’re not looking to catch you out about a period you weren’t there for.

Then be clear about what you have and haven’t been able to check. “I’ve been through the safeguarding records myself and I’m confident about that. I haven’t yet completed a full curriculum review, so my view on curriculum and teaching is based on three weeks of visits and the previous leader’s evaluation.” That’s a professional answer.

Answer with evidence and name the standard

Under the renewed framework you’re grading against defined criteria rather than forming an overall impression. Use that.

Rather than “I’d say we’re strong on inclusion”, say what you’ve seen and against what. “I’ve case sampled six pupils myself in the last fortnight. Provision matches plans in five and there’s a gap in one which we’re addressing. On that basis I’d put inclusion at expected standard moving towards strong.”

Two things follow from that. You’ve shown the evidence base, and you’ve shown you understand that grading is now about meeting the criteria rather than an overall feel. Under the secure fit approach, being at expected standard or above requires meeting every criterion, so a leader who says “strong” while knowing one criterion isn’t met has misjudged it.

Where you genuinely don’t know, say so and say what you’d need to find out. That’s a better answer than a guess.

Don’t distance yourself from the school

This is the trap, and it’s a tempting one.

An interim who spends the call explaining that the problems predate them, that they’ve only been here six weeks and that none of this is their doing may be factually correct and will have damaged the school’s position considerably.

You’re the headteacher. You’re accountable for the school as it is now, including what you inherited. Inspectors will note the context without you pressing it, and pressing it reads as distancing rather than as honesty.

The stronger position is ownership with context. “This is where the school is. Here’s what I found when I arrived, here’s what I’ve done in six weeks, and here’s my plan.” That’s a leader. The other version is a visitor.

Don’t overstate to protect the staff

The opposite instinct is just as common and just as damaging.

An interim arriving in a school where staff have had a difficult year will want to protect them, and inflating the self-evaluation feels like loyalty. It isn’t. Inspectors will find what’s there, and a gap between your account and the evidence undermines the leadership and governance judgement in a way that affects everyone.

Staff are far better served by a leader whose honesty about a weakness is matched by a credible plan. That combination reads well. Optimism that doesn’t survive contact with the evidence doesn’t.

What about case sampling?

Inclusion is now a graded evaluation area in its own right and case sampling sits within it. Inspectors will look closely at the experience of individual pupils facing barriers to learning or wellbeing.

For an interim in a special school or alternative provision, this is the single most useful preparation available, and it’s achievable in your first fortnight. Take five or six pupils, read their plans, and trace what they actually receive on a Tuesday against what’s specified.

Do that and you can speak about inclusion from your own evidence rather than from someone else’s evaluation. It’s also the exercise most likely to tell you something the school doesn’t know about itself.

Ofsted has been clear that inspectors take context into account in special schools and AP, and that published outcomes data may not give a clear picture of the progress pupils are making in specialist settings. That’s helpful to you, and it means your account of individual progress carries weight.

From our experience

The interims who handle the planning call best are the ones who spent their first fortnight looking at things themselves rather than reading documents about them.

We often see a new leader arrive, absorb the previous self-evaluation, and repeat it on the call because they have nothing else. That’s the weakest possible position, because you’re defending a judgement you didn’t make and can’t evidence.

Many interim leaders tell us the call went better than they expected once they stopped trying to sound like they’d been there a year. Inspectors deal with leadership changes regularly and they respond well to someone who’s straightforward about what they know.

The other pattern worth naming is the board and the interim giving different accounts. Inspectors speak to governors and proprietors as part of leadership and governance, and two different self-evaluations in the same school is a finding in itself. Agree your position beforehand.

A common misconception

“Being new is a disadvantage on the planning call.”

It’s understandable to feel that, and in one respect it’s true: you have less knowledge than a settled head would.

But you also have something a settled head doesn’t, which is fresh eyes and no investment in the previous account. An interim who says “the self-evaluation I inherited said strong, and having looked myself I think we’re at expected standard in that area, and here’s why” has demonstrated precisely the kind of honest self-knowledge the framework rewards.

The children in the school are best served by an inspection that identifies what’s actually happening, because that’s what leads to it getting better. An accurate account, even an uncomfortable one, is the most useful thing you can offer.

Questions for interim leaders

• Have I checked anything myself, or am I repeating the previous evaluation?
• Have I case sampled a handful of pupils and traced provision against their plans?
• Can I name the evidence behind each grade I’d offer?
• Have I agreed the position with the proprietor or board?
• Am I about to distance myself from the school, or own it with context?

Our perspective

The self-grading question is really a question about whether you know your school, and being new changes the answer less than it feels like it should.

Be clear that you’re the interim and when you started. Separate what you’ve verified from what you’ve inherited. Ground every grade in evidence you can point to. Own the school as it is rather than explaining that it isn’t your fault. And don’t inflate to protect people, because it doesn’t protect them.

Do that and you’ll have given an honest account that inspectors can work with, which is the best thing available to the school and to the children and young people in it.