High Court refuses permission for judicial review over new regime for assessing schools following inspections

In National Association of Head Teachers v Ofsted, Mr Justice Saini concluded that “ultimately, the merits of Ofsted's report card grading system with accompanying narrative, including its approach to the well-being issues raised, are not matters for this court”.

Outlining the background to the case, the judge noted that from 10 November 2025, Ofsted proposes to introduce a new education inspection "report card" grading system, in the form of a 5-point scale. The reports will also include a narrative.

However, the claimants in the case object to the 5-point scale on well-being grounds.

The first claimant was the NAHT, and the second claimant was a headteacher at a primary school.

The judge said: “They [the claimants] would prefer what they call a pure ‘narrative-only’ approach as opposed to any form of grading. That is the system adopted by Northern Ireland and Wales.

“The claimants advance six grounds of judicial review which they argue establish the unlawfulness in public law of the decisions culminating in this framework.

“These grounds have substantial overlaps but at the core of the claimants' challenge is what they say was a failure by Ofsted to conduct a legally sufficient consultation in relation to the decision or to give any adequate consideration to the serious negative effects that the new framework, if implemented, will have on the well-being and mental health of school leaders and teachers.”

In addition to seeking permission for a judicial review, the claimants applied for an interim injunction preventing Ofsted from introducing the new grading system on 10 November.

Mr Justice Saini said: “Although this claim wears the clothes of a procedural challenge to a consultation process, in substance NAHT's real complaint is about the policy design decision made by Ofsted to the effect that some form of grading is necessary. That is a matter of high educational policy and the Claimants’ case is built on a wholesale opposition to any form of grading.

“The evidence satisfies me that Ofsted's conclusions, that a grading plus narrative approach best balances the different interests at play, was reached after a detailed consultation conducted in a procedurally lawful way and after a careful assessment of the various views expressed to it, including consideration of well-being issues.”

Mr Justice Saini concluded: “Ultimately, the merits of Ofsted's report card grading system with accompanying narrative, including its approach to the well-being issues raised, are not matters for this court. A judicial review court must ensure a public body acts in accordance with the standards of procedural fairness the law requires, including not predetermining the outcome before consultation, and making due inquiry to equip itself with evidence. In my judgment, there was no arguable error on these matters.

“It is for Ofsted to decide how to conduct its inspections in the way which, in its expert judgment, is most effective, while taking account of the risk to the well-being of teaching staff and leaders. The evidence does not persuade me that its approach to these risks involved any arguable public law error.”

He added: “Had I been satisfied there was any arguable error by Ofsted, the balance of convenience including public interest considerations would have come down substantially in favour of refusing an injunction seeking to restrain the implementation of the new inspection and reporting system next week.”

Responding to the ruling, NAHT general secretary Paul Whiteman said: "It is disappointing that the decision was made to decline our request for a judicial review, but this case was always being brought forward on a very narrow point of law relating to the validity of Ofsted's consultation process for their new framework.

“The decision doesn't detract from our valid and reasonable concern about the damage to the mental health and wellbeing of school leaders and staff of the new report cards. This is an acute and basic health and safety issue recognised by an independent report commissioned by Ofsted itself, which has not been dealt with at all. Both Ofsted and the government have failed to address the very real risk posed by the new framework to school leaders.

“It is a fundamental responsibility of a trade union to protect its members. We will now consider an appeal and will be consulting our members on industrial action."

Lottie Winson