All Saints Academy, Dunstable, R (on the application of) v The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1792 (Admin)
Thomas Telford School v Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Schools
23 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 880 (Admin)
High Court
A school sued Ofsted for a 'good' instead of 'outstanding' rating. The judge said Ofsted made mistakes at first but fixed them, and the school's messy record-keeping justified the lower rating, even if the school's student behavior was great. The judge also said Ofsted's inspection was fair, even if the inspector was a bit of a bully.
Key Facts
- •Thomas Telford School (TTS), a City Technology College (CTC), challenged Ofsted's 'good' rating for leadership and management, despite 'outstanding' ratings in other areas.
- •Ofsted's concerns centered on TTS's approach to recording absences and its behavior policy.
- •TTS argued Ofsted failed to understand CTC's unique statutory arrangements, leading to errors.
- •Ofsted's initial misunderstanding of CTC status led to incorrect assumptions about applicable guidance.
- •The key issue was whether Ofsted's 'good' rating was legally rational and procedurally fair.
Legal Principles
Judicial review of Ofsted inspections considers rationality and procedural fairness.
Various case laws cited, including R. (Governing Body of X) v. Ofsted [2020] EWCA Civ. 594 and Doody v Secretary of State for Home Department [1993] 3 All E R 92.
CTCs have different statutory arrangements and freedoms compared to other schools.
Education Reform Act 1988, Education Act 1996, Education Act 2011, Academies Act 2010
Ofsted inspections must comply with procedural fairness, though the standards are context-dependent.
Doody v Secretary of State for Home Department [1993] 3 All E R 92
Irrationality in Ofsted inspections is difficult to prove; dissatisfaction alone is insufficient.
R. (Governing Body of X) v. Ofsted [2020] EWCA Civ. 594
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
Ofsted's 'good' rating was deemed rational, even considering initial misunderstandings. The inaccuracies in attendance record-keeping were a legitimate concern, regardless of the initial misinterpretations of CTC status and guidance.
Ground 1 (rationality) dismissed.
While Ofsted initially made errors regarding applicable guidance, these were corrected during the inspection. Shortcomings in attendance record-keeping and the behaviour policy provided sufficient grounds for the 'good' rating.
Ground 2 (procedural fairness) dismissed.
Though initial errors were made, the inspection process allowed for correction. The overall process was deemed fair despite the inspector's initial lack of preparation and heavy-handed communication.
Similar Cases
London Borough of Islington, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education
[2024] EWHC 1798 (Admin)
X Limited, R (on the application of) v Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1803 (Admin)
HPSPC Limited & Anor, (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education
[2022] EWHC 3159 (Admin)
Seabrooke Manor Limited, R (on the application of) v The Care Quality Commission
[2024] EWHC 2203 (Admin)