Thomas Telford School v Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Schools

Ofsted’s evaluative judgment may be challenged where it rests on a material error of law or an irrational assessment. An inspection may begin with an erroneous understanding of an institution’s statutory position, but the error will not necessarily invalidate the result if it is corrected during the inspection and the final assessment rests on independent, rational concerns. Procedural fairness is assessed contextually. A generally fair inspection and complaints process can correct misunderstandings, although the particular process must still be examined. Accurate records and effective governance may legitimately affect a school’s leadership and management rating, even where pupils’ behaviour is exemplary.

Thomas Telford School, a City Technology College with statutory freedoms differing from those of maintained and academy schools, sought judicial review of Ofsted’s decision to rate its leadership and management as “good” rather than “outstanding”. The rating resulted in an overall “good” grade, while the other inspected areas were rated “outstanding”.

The challenge concerned Ofsted’s treatment of attendance coding, students sent home following behavioural incidents, the School’s behaviour policy, and the inspectors’ initial mistaken view that statutory exclusion and attendance guidance applied to the School. The School alleged irrationality, material errors of law and procedural unfairness.

1. The claim was dismissed. The School was ordered to pay Ofsted’s costs, capped at £42,000.
2. Ofsted initially misunderstood the statutory position of City Technology Colleges. It wrongly considered that the Exclusions Guidance and Attendance Guidance bound the School. Those errors were corrected during the inspection process and did not determine the final judgment.
3. The decisive concerns were independent of those initial errors. The School had chosen to use the Attendance Guidance codes but had not applied them consistently. Some absences connected with students being sent home for behavioural reasons were coded inaccurately, including instances recorded as educational activity or as attendance. The resulting records obscured the true position and limited the ability of senior leaders and governors to oversee attendance and behaviour.
4. The School’s behaviour policy also failed to describe all interventions actually used. Ofsted was entitled to regard inaccurate attendance records, inadequate transparency and incomplete policy documentation as shortcomings in leadership and management.
5. The finding that pupils’ behaviour was exemplary did not make the criticism of the recording and governance arrangements irrational. Behavioural quality and the accuracy of management information were distinct matters.
6. The high threshold for irrationality in the context of an expert statutory inspection, described in R. (Governing Body of X) v Ofsted [2020] EWCA Civ 594, was not met. The evidence, including coding errors, discussions with pupils and governors, and a parent’s informed observations, provided a rational basis for the assessment.
7. The inspection and complaints procedures were inherently capable of correcting mistakes, as recognised in R. (on the application of Durand Academy Trust) v Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills [2018] EWCA Civ 281. The initial lack of preparation and heavy-handed communication were criticised, but the errors were corrected and the report itself was not legally unfair.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The judgment records that permission to apply for judicial review was granted on 1 August 2023. The claim was dismissed by the High Court (Administrative Court).