KoinEd Report Summary – a compendium of 12 months of English Government education reports

Simon Uttley

Introduction

Government research usually arrives either well before a decision or well after it. The twelve months covered here are unusual because so much of it landed in the middle. Three structural changes to education in England were set in motion during this period, and much of the research published alongside them is the evidence on which the details will be worked out.

The first is curriculum. The Curriculum and Assessment Review published its final report on 5 November 2025 and the government responded the same day, accepting a substantial share of the recommendations. The direction is therefore fixed: the EBacc goes, Progress 8 is reformed, triple science becomes an entitlement, oracy gets a framework, and every subject area is refreshed against a common set of principles. What is not fixed is the content. A revised national curriculum is due in 2027 for first teaching in 2028, which means the programmes of study are being drafted now.

The second is special educational needs. The white paper Every Child Achieving and Thriving, published on 23 February 2026, contains a major section on SEND reform, and the accompanying consultation closed on 18 May 2026. Four of the studies summarised here sit directly beneath that white paper: an analysis of GCSE outcomes for pupils with EHCPs across thirteen years of national data, parent accounts of specialist provision inside mainstream schools, expert recommendations on supporting neurodivergent pupils, and an evaluation of post-16 supported internships. Between them they cover the pipeline from key stage 4 to employment, and they are the strongest evidence available on whether mainstream inclusion works in practice rather than in principle.

The third is inspection. Ofsted’s renewed framework launched in November 2025, replacing single-word summary grades with report cards showing a profile across separate evaluation areas. The first annual revision to the inspection toolkits took effect in September 2026. Ofsted published its research base for the framework in February 2026, which is the clearest available account of what the evaluation areas are actually attempting to measure.

Two pressures run underneath all three. Artificial intelligence stopped being a classroom curiosity during this year and became a question about the integrity of assessment. Ofqual’s January 2026 working paper concluded that AI cannot currently be the sole mechanism for awarding marks in regulated qualifications, and the Curriculum and Assessment Review recommended both a broader computing GCSE and exploration of a new data science and AI qualification for 16 to 18 year olds. Regulator and curriculum panel reached the same place independently: the technology is moving faster than the rules governing it.

The other pressure is skills. The two thematic reports from the 2023 Survey of Adult Skills point in opposite directions. Young people in England improved markedly between the 2012 and 2023 survey cycles, against the trend in most participating countries, while around 8.5 million adults still have low literacy or numeracy or both. That improvement in measured skills coexists with persistently high numbers of young people not in education, employment or training, a problem serious enough for the government to commission a separate review that reported in May 2026. Whatever is raising attainment is not by itself producing labour market outcomes.

One pattern is worth flagging because it cuts across the whole set. Several of the programme evaluations published this year report honestly that they cannot produce a defensible impact estimate. The 16 to 19 Tuition Fund evaluation had to restrict its analysis to school sixth forms after problems emerged in the source data. The Behaviour Hubs evaluation states that causal claims from its quantitative evidence are weak. In both cases the programmes had already been restructured or wound down by the time the evaluation reported, as had Music Hubs, whose partnerships were cut from 114 to 43 before the interim evaluation appeared. Evidence is arriving after the decisions it was meant to inform, which is a systemic issue rather than a failing of any individual report.

This matters now for a practical reason. For schools, trusts, local authorities and awarding organisations, the next eighteen months are when these changes become operational rather than theoretical. Curriculum content is being written, SEND reform is moving from consultation to legislation, and inspection is running under revised toolkits. The research summarised here is the material those decisions are drawing on, and it is considerably more useful read now than read afterwards.

Scope and method

This review covers research published by UK government bodies with a remit for education in England between September 2025 and August 2026. The three publishers represented are the Department for Education, Ofsted and Ofqual. Reports written by external contractors — NatCen, NFER and others — are included where the Department commissioned and published them, since these form the bulk of the Department’s research output.

The Department for Education alone published roughly a hundred research outputs in this period, so what follows is a selection rather than a census. The twenty entries were chosen to cover the main policy areas active during the year: curriculum and assessment reform, SEND, behaviour, early years, adult and post-16 skills, children’s social care, and inspection.

Research published by the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, Estyn or the Northern Ireland Department of Education is outside this review.

A note on links. Where a direct GOV.UK or publishing service URL was confirmed, that is the URL given. For several Departmental research reports the confirmed full text sits on the ERIC repository, which mirrors UK government education reports; those URLs are used instead. Both are stable and both give the full report.

What the year’s research shows

SEND is central

Four of the twenty studies deal directly with special educational needs, and several others touch on it. They approach the same problem from different angles: national attainment data comparing mainstream and special settings, parent accounts of specialist units inside mainstream schools, expert recommendations on neurodivergence, and an evaluation of post-16 supported internships. Taken together they supply much of the evidence sitting behind the SEND reforms proposed in the February 2026 white paper.

Hub and partnership models keep producing mixed verdicts

Behaviour Hubs, English Hubs and Music Hubs were all evaluated during the year. The Behaviour Hubs final report is the most methodologically interesting of the three because it abandons the search for a single average effect and instead identifies several different routes by which schools improved, depending on their starting context. That framing — many pathways, no single mechanism — is likely to shape how the merged attendance and behaviour hubs are assessed.

Evaluators are increasingly candid about what they cannot say

The 16 to 19 Tuition Fund evaluation restricted its impact estimates to school sixth forms after problems emerged in the source data. The Behaviour Hubs report states plainly that causal claims from its quantitative data are weak. This candour is welcome and makes the reports more usable, but it also means several headline programmes end the period without a defensible impact figure.

Artificial intelligence has become a regulatory question

Ofqual’s January 2026 working paper on AI in marking is the clearest statement yet from a UK regulator on where the line sits. Its conclusion — AI is useful for quality assurance and marker training, but cannot be the sole mechanism for awarding marks under current regulations — has been picked up well beyond England.

The skills picture splits by age

The two PIAAC thematic reports point in opposite directions. Young people in England improved sharply between the 2012 and 2023 survey cycles, against the trend in most participating countries. At the same time around 8.5 million adults still have low literacy or numeracy or both. Policy attention on youth NEET rates and on adult basic skills is drawing on these two findings simultaneously.

Early years research follows the funding

The expansion of funded childcare entitlements generated two distinct kinds of study this year: an assurance exercise checking that the additional money reached its intended purpose, and research into school-based nursery models that fall outside standard term-time, school-hours provision.

Section A: Curriculum, assessment and qualifications

1. Curriculum and Assessment Review: final report

Reference

Curriculum and Assessment Review. (2025). Building a world-class curriculum for all: Final report. Department for Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/690b96bbc22e4ed8b051854d/Curriculum_and_Assessment_Review_final_report_-_Building_a_world-class_curriculum_for_all.pdf

Summary

The most consequential education publication of the period. The government commissioned Professor Becky Francis in July 2024 to chair an expert panel reviewing the national curriculum and statutory assessment from key stage 1 to key stage 5, including qualification pathways. An interim report appeared in March 2025; the 197-page final report was published on 5 November 2025 alongside the government response.

The panel worked from research, statistical analysis and consultation with teachers, school leaders, pupils, parents, employers, universities and unions. It sets out eleven principles for a refreshed curriculum and recommends that every subject area be updated against them. The knowledge-rich approach is retained, with skills developed alongside knowledge in ways appropriate to each discipline.

Specific recommendations include an oracy framework to sit alongside the existing reading and writing frameworks; more attention to digital, financial and media literacy and to climate science; a triple science entitlement; replacing the narrowly framed computer science GCSE with a broader computing GCSE; making citizenship compulsory in primary; adding religious education to the national curriculum; removing the EBacc and reforming Progress 8 to encourage subject breadth; and a programme of evidence-led guidance on curriculum adaptation for pupils with SEND, including those in specialist provision.

The panel describes its approach as evolution rather than upheaval. A revised national curriculum is due in 2027 for first teaching in 2028.

2. Ofqual working paper on artificial intelligence in marking

Reference

Ofqual. (2026a). Principles of AI use in marking [Working paper]. Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation.

Ofqual. (2026b, January 14). Using AI in marking: Why technical capability, fairness, and transparency all matter [Blog post]. https://ofqual.blog.gov.uk/2026/01/14/using-ai-in-marking-why-technical-capability-fairness-and-transparency-all-matter/

Summary

Published in January 2026 and framed deliberately as a working paper rather than guidance, this study draws on structured discussions with technology specialists, awarding organisations and academics who were asked to test and challenge Ofqual’s thinking.

The conclusion is unambiguous. AI shows promise for quality assurance work and for marker training, but is nowhere near ready to take over high-stakes marking. Using AI as the sole mechanism for awarding marks does not comply with Ofqual’s current regulations, which require human judgement in marking decisions. The paper sets out three grounds: the potential for bias, the risk of inaccuracy, and a lack of transparency in how marks are reached.

The reasoning goes beyond technical capability. Ofqual argues that high-stakes qualifications rest on a social contract between students, educators and society, so marking decisions must be accountable, explainable and open to challenge — requirements that current systems struggle to meet even when they are accurate. Ofqual confirmed in its 2025 to 2026 annual report that it is drawing on this work while considering whether further policy clarification is needed.

Section B: Teaching, behaviour and school improvement

3. Evaluation of the Behaviour Hubs programme: final report

Reference

Befani, B., Finlay, I., Ferenci, A., Ovington, L., Stevens, J., & Benny, L. (2026). Evaluation of the Behaviour Hubs programme: Final report. Department for Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/695fa10341ddb40d13f764f5/Behaviour_Hubs_January_2026.pdf

Summary

Behaviour Hubs launched in April 2021 as a three-year DfE-funded programme. Schools and multi-academy trusts with strong behaviour cultures were paired as lead partners with schools that wanted to improve, supported by a central offer and a taskforce of advisers.

NatCen used a realist evaluation design built around context-mechanism-outcome configurations, combined with school case studies and Qualitative Comparative Analysis of survey responses. Staff ratings of pupil behaviour in partner schools improved over the course of the programme. Around 80 per cent of participating schools found the programme very useful, with the strongest reported benefit in schools with small pupil numbers.

The most useful finding is structural rather than numerical. The analysis identifies a diverse set of successful pathways from different starting contexts, rather than one mechanism that worked everywhere. Change was typically triggered by raised staff awareness of behaviour strategies and by more consistent implementation of behaviour policy.

The report is explicit about its limits: causal claims based on the available quantitative data are weak, and there are gaps in the case study evidence. Pupil views are not reported here. An earlier interim evaluation that did survey pupils found a small negative shift in the proportion rating behaviour positively over the programme period, from 27 to 25 per cent, with a modest improvement in schools serving more deprived intakes.

The final report was published in January 2026, by which time the Department had merged behaviour and attendance hubs into a single RISE programme with reduced funding.

4. English Hubs programme phonics impact evaluation 2019 to 2025

Reference

Trippett, J., & Dixon, C. (2026). English Hubs programme phonics impact evaluation 2019 to 2025. Department for Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED679939.pdf

Summary

The English Hubs Programme was established in 2018 to improve phonics teaching, early language and reading for pleasure, with a particular focus on pupils making the slowest progress in reading. Selected primary schools receive bespoke intensive support as partner schools.

This evaluation assesses six years of that intensive phonics support, from 2019 to 2025. It is one of the longer observation windows available for any current English schools programme, which makes it a useful reference point for anyone assessing hub-based improvement models more generally, and for reading the reading and literacy commitments in the 2026 white paper.

Readers wanting the impact estimates themselves should go to the report’s executive summary; the published abstract sets out scope rather than headline effect sizes.

5. Connect the Classroom evaluation

Reference

Department for Education. (2026b). Connect the Classroom evaluation: Research report. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED679925.pdf

Summary

The March 2022 schools white paper committed up to £150 million to Connect the Classroom, a programme upgrading school network infrastructure — wireless coverage and cabling — concentrated in areas where connectivity was weakest.

The evaluation examines whether improved infrastructure translated into changed classroom practice, and revisits the barriers to effective technology adoption that the white paper identified. It is relevant to school leaders and trusts weighing further investment in digital infrastructure, and to the wider question of what conditions have to be met before technology spending affects teaching.

Section C: SEND and inclusion

6. The Neurodivergence Task and Finish Group report

Reference

Department for Education. (2026g). The Neurodivergence Task and Finish Group: Report. Recommendations for mainstream education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED679898.pdf

Summary

An expert group convened to advise the Department on how mainstream settings can better support neurodivergent children and young people.

The starting point is the outcome gap. Neurodivergent pupils are at greatly increased risk of poorer education and health outcomes than their peers: they are more likely to be suspended or absent from school, more likely to be out of work later, more likely to need mental health services, more likely to have poor long-term health, and more likely to end up in the criminal justice system.

The group’s argument is that many of these outcomes are downstream of what mainstream classrooms do or fail to do, which makes mainstream practice — rather than specialist placement alone — the primary lever. The report sets out recommendations on that basis.

This is one of the more directly actionable publications of the year for school leaders, and it connects closely to the inclusion proposals in the February 2026 white paper.

7. GCSE outcomes for pupils with EHCPs: mainstream versus special school settings

Reference

Phillips, N. F. (2026a). GCSE outcomes for pupils with EHCPs: Mainstream versus special school settings. Summary report. Department for Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED679942.pdf

Phillips, N. F. (2026b). GCSE outcomes for pupils with EHCPs: Mainstream versus special school settings. Technical methodology report with statistical appendices. Department for Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED679941.pdf

Summary

A National Pupil Database analysis of GCSE attainment in English and mathematics for pupils holding an Education, Health and Care Plan, comparing those educated in mainstream schools with those in special schools.

The scale is substantial: 94,927 pupils across thirteen academic years, from 2011/12 to 2023/24. That span allows the analysis to distinguish long-run patterns from year-to-year noise, which shorter comparisons of placement type cannot do.

A companion technical methodology report with statistical appendices sets out the approach and the full results, including how the analysis handles the fact that pupils in the two settings differ systematically in need and prior attainment. Anyone citing this work in a placement debate should read the technical report rather than the summary alone, because the comparison is heavily conditioned on those adjustments.

8. SEND bases in mainstream schools: parent views

Reference

Department for Education. (2026h). SEND bases in mainstream schools: Parent views. Research report. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a3119411f6fa5c3377e6005/SENDBases_ParentCarer_Report.pdf

Summary

Published in June 2026, this study surveyed and interviewed parents and carers of children attending three kinds of provision inside mainstream schools: specialist units, resourced provision, and units the school runs itself.

The three groups differ. Almost all children in specialist units and resourced provision held an EHCP — 92 and 91 per cent respectively — compared with 59 per cent in schools’ own units, which suggests those units are doing something different in practice from the formally designated provision.

Parents valued bases where staff understood a child’s specific needs and adapted subject content accordingly. Several said their child simply could not access the curriculum without that adaptation, describing daily liaison between base staff, subject teachers and families, and pre-teaching before mainstream lessons.

The picture at secondary level was harder. Some parents reported that attending a base marked their child out from mainstream peers and made them a target for bullying, with consequences for mental health. That tension — between the support a base provides and the visibility it creates — is the study’s most policy-relevant finding, and it does not show up in placement statistics.

9. Evaluation of the strengthening of the supported internship programme

Reference

Department for Education. (2026f). Evaluation of the strengthening of the supported internship programme: Research report. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED679929.pdf

Summary

Supported internships are structured, work-based study programmes for 16 to 24 year olds with special educational needs or disabilities who hold an EHCP. The Department invested £18 million from September 2022 to strengthen and expand the offer.

This evaluation examines how that investment was delivered and what it achieved. It matters disproportionately because employment outcomes for young people with EHCPs remain poor, and supported internships are one of the few interventions in this space with a defined national model and dedicated funding. Read alongside the neurodivergence report and the EHCP attainment analysis, it completes a picture of the SEND pipeline from key stage 4 through to work.

Section D: Early years and early language

10. Early Language Support for Every Child (ELSEC): interim evaluation

Reference

Department for Education. (2026c). Early Language Support for Every Child (ELSEC) programme: Interim evaluation report. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED679937.pdf

Summary

ELSEC launched in September 2023 as a joint initiative between the Department for Education and NHS England, addressing children’s speech, language and communication needs through early intervention and new delivery models.

The interim report covers implementation and early indications of effect. The programme is worth watching for reasons beyond its own results: it is a test of whether education and health services can deliver a shared early intervention model at scale, and the delivery findings will be relevant to anyone designing cross-departmental provision. Speech, language and communication needs are also the single largest primary need category recorded in the SEND system, so the programme sits upstream of a large share of later EHCP demand.

11. School-based nursery provision outside the typical model

Reference

Department for Education. (2026d). Early years school-based nursery provision operating outside of the typical model: Research report. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED679885.pdf

Summary

School-based nurseries usually take three and four year olds during school hours in term time. This study looks at the ones that do not: provision for under-threes, care outside school hours, and provision running through the holidays.

The aim is to build an evidence base on the benefits and challenges of these less standard models. It arrives at a useful moment, with funded entitlements expanded to younger children and the government pushing school-based nursery expansion. The practical questions the report addresses — staffing, ratios, premises, holiday operation, and how these settings handle children with additional needs — are exactly the ones schools ask when deciding whether to open or extend a nursery.

12. Early Years Assurance Programme findings, 2024 to 2025

Reference

Department for Education. (2026a). 2024 to 2025 early years funding: 2024 to 2025 Early Years Assurance Programme findings. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED679921.pdf

Summary

The 2024 to 2025 expansion of the Dedicated Schools Grant early years block sharply increased the funding the Department pays to local authorities. That increase carried an inherent risk: that entitlement funding might not reach its intended purpose.

The Department ran an assurance programme across local authorities to test that it did, and this report sets out what the exercise found. It is a compliance and financial governance document rather than an educational study, and it will be of most use to local authority early years and finance teams, and to anyone tracking how well the entitlement expansion has been administered.

Section E: Skills, post-16 and adult learning

13. Survey of Adult Skills 2023 (PIAAC): low skills thematic report

Reference

Kuhn, L., del Pozo Segura, J. M., Liht, J., & Wheater, R. (2026). Survey of Adult Skills 2023 (PIAAC): Low skills thematic report. Department for Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED679912.pdf

Summary

The 2023 OECD Survey of Adult Skills found that around 20 per cent of adults aged 16 to 65 in England had low basic skills in literacy, numeracy or both. That is an estimated 8.5 million people, down from around 9 million when the first cycle ran in 2012.

This thematic report goes behind that headline to profile the group: who has low basic skills, how that relates to income and other individual characteristics, and how the picture has shifted across the eleven years between survey cycles. The modest fall in the absolute number masks the fact that the working-age population grew over the same period.

It provides much of the underpinning evidence for adult skills policy and for Skills England’s analysis of the skills gap, including arguments about the balance between public and employer-funded training.

14. Survey of Adult Skills 2023 (PIAAC): young people thematic report

Reference

Classick, R., Kuhn, L., del Pozo Segura, J. M., Liht, J., & Wheater, R. (2026). Survey of Adult Skills 2023 (PIAAC): Young people thematic report. Department for Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED679914.pdf

Summary

The companion volume, and the more encouraging of the two. In the 2012 cycle, 16 to 24 year olds in England were among the lowest performers internationally in literacy and numeracy. By 2023 that had changed markedly, and England’s young people improved at a time when the trend in most participating countries went the other way.

The report examines what lies behind the improvement. That question has direct policy value: if the gain can be attributed to identifiable features of schooling in England over the period, the case for protecting those features is strong; if it cannot, claims made on either side of the curriculum debate should be treated carefully.

The finding sits awkwardly alongside persistent concern about youth NEET rates, which suggests that improved measured skills are not translating straightforwardly into labour market outcomes.

15. Evaluation of the 16 to 19 Tuition Fund: impact evaluation

Reference

Department for Education. (2026e). Evaluation of the 16 to 19 Tuition Fund: Impact evaluation report. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a69aaaf16bc92f51e1a42ad/16_to_19_tuition_fund_impact_evaluation_report_.pdf

Summary

Published in July 2026, this evaluates the fund set up to provide small-group tuition to disadvantaged students aged 16 to 19 following the pandemic.

The design matched students who received tuition to otherwise similar students who did not, allowing an estimate of the effect on attainment. The original matching worked well, but problems were then identified in the source data affecting a number of post-16 institutions that had received funding. In agreement with the Department, the evaluators produced impact estimates for students in school sixth forms only, and a single overall estimate.

The student-reported picture is more positive than the attainment picture. Twenty-three per cent of students felt they had achieved better grades because of tuition. The report suggests that gains in confidence and study skills were more common than measurable attainment gains, and that attainment effects may need a longer window to appear.

Delivery varied enormously. Some students received one-off sessions in the run-up to exams; others had recurring sessions sustained over months. Subject coverage was equally wide. The report argues that this variation is itself likely to explain much of the impact result, which is a reasonable caution against reading a single average as a verdict on tutoring.

16. Evaluation of the Enrichment Partnership Programme

Reference

National Foundation for Educational Research. (2026). Evaluation of the Enrichment Partnership Programme (EPP). Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Department for Education. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evaluation-of-the-enrichment-partnership-programme-epp

Summary

The most recent publication in this review, released on 28 August 2026. The Enrichment Partnerships Pilot was designed to improve the enrichment opportunities available to pupils — sport, the arts, volunteering and similar activities — and to increase participation, particularly among pupils least likely to take part.

NFER carried out the evaluation, jointly published by DCMS and DfE. It is timely: the government is developing an enrichment framework covering education up to age 18, and this pilot is the main piece of evidence on whether partnership working between schools and external providers actually widens participation rather than serving pupils who already take part.

Section F: Children’s social care, workforce and the arts

17. Child sexual abuse and exploitation: recording practices

Reference

Ball, E., McManus, M., McElwee, J., & Monaghan, P. (2026). Child sexual abuse and exploitation: Recording practices in children’s social care and serious incident reporting — Qualitative insights for policy and practice. Department for Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED679897.pdf

Summary

National reviews have repeatedly found a gap between the volume of child sexual abuse and exploitation recorded by police and what is visible in children’s social care data, particularly the Children in Need census and Serious Incident Notifications. Recommendation 9 of the Casey Audit called for that gap to be investigated.

This qualitative study responds. It examines how practitioners actually record cases, what decisions and definitions sit behind a recorded category, and why cases known to police do not consistently surface in national datasets.

The implication reaches beyond safeguarding practice. Anyone using Children in Need data to estimate prevalence, allocate resources or evaluate interventions is working with a dataset whose recording behaviour this report shows to be inconsistent. That is a caveat worth carrying into any analysis built on it.

18. Step Up to Social Work cohort 7

Reference

Crees, K., Dunn, J., & Clay, A. (2026). Step Up to Social Work cohort 7: Surveys of applicants and completers. Research report. Department for Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED679910.pdf

Summary

Step Up to Social Work is a 14-month graduate training route into social work, focused on child and family practice. This report, produced in house by Departmental analysts rather than an external contractor, investigates recruitment and retention in the 2022 cohort.

It draws on two surveys: one of applicants and one of those who completed the programme. Together these allow comparison between who applies, who finishes, and what shapes the decision to stay in the profession afterwards.

The value here is workforce planning. Children’s social care in England has persistent vacancy and turnover problems, and Step Up is one of several routes competing for the same graduate pool. Evidence on who it attracts and holds is directly usable by local authorities and by anyone modelling social work supply.

19. Music Hubs evaluation: interim report

Reference

Bhatti, S., Wadsworth, K., Speight, S., Kerr, J., North, M., MacNaboe, L., Cummins, C., & Haque, A. (2026). Music Hubs evaluation: Interim report. Research report. Department for Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED679884.pdf

Summary

The Department commissioned NatCen to evaluate the restructured Music Hubs programme, which came into effect in September 2024 under the 2022 National Plan for Music Education published by the previous government.

The restructure was substantial. The number of hub partnerships fell from 114 to 43, with most areas now served by considerably larger partnerships covering wider geographies. The interim report examines how that consolidation has worked in practice — governance, reach, relationships with schools and music teachers, and whether larger partnerships have preserved local knowledge.

It is a useful case study of a pattern common across English education policy: consolidating many small delivery bodies into fewer larger ones on efficiency grounds, and the trade-offs that follow.

Section G: Inspection and regulation

20. Renewed inspection framework: overview of research

Reference

Ofsted. (2026). Renewed inspection framework: Overview of research. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69a065526457311dafbbcd8e/Renewed_inspection_framework_Overview_of_research.pdf

Summary

Published in February 2026, this sets out the research base behind the inspection framework that launched in November 2025 — the framework that replaced single-word summary grades with report cards giving a grade profile across separate evaluation areas.

The review covers school leadership and governance, the quality assurance of teaching, school climate, attendance and pupil vulnerability. It reports evidence linking leaders who actively quality-assure teaching — clear policies, monitoring, action taken on quality — to better outcomes for children and learners, while cautioning that a single approach to quality assurance does not produce the same results in every setting. It also draws on recent work reconceptualising vulnerability as a state rather than a fixed trait, which matters for how inspectors are asked to consider individual children.

For school leaders, the practical use of this document is that it explains what the evaluation areas in the inspection toolkits are trying to measure and why. Ofsted has since committed to publishing annual toolkit changes in advance, with the first set taking effect from September 2026.

Reference list

APA 7th edition. Alphabetical by author. Where one author or body published several works in the same year, letter suffixes distinguish them.